Samsuddin vs Commissioner Devi Patan Gonda & ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3894 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 7409 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Samsuddin
 
Respondent :- Commissioner Devi Patan Gonda & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nripendra Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties as well as perused the record.

By filing this petition a prayer has been made by the petitioner to quash the order dated 3.2.2021 passed by Court of Commissioner in Appeal No. 00038/2021 'Shamsuddin Versus State of U.P.', under Section 6 of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 to the extent of rejection of stay application., whereby the appeal has been admitted for hearing, however, the order of the trial court has not been stayed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 has been invoked against the applicant on the basis of single criminal case i.e. Case Crime No. 161 of 2020, under Section 379 IPC and 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and apart from this solitary case the petitioner was not involved in any other criminal case. However, the trial court in utter disregard to the fact that there was no evidence with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in any such illegal activity, which may attract the provision of Goondas Act, has passed order dated 31.12.2020, whereby the petitioner was directed to remain outside the district for six months.

It is further submitted that the above mentioned order dated 31.12.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Shrawasti was challenged by filing appeal before the Commissioner, Devi Patan, Mandal Gonda and by passing the impugned order dated 3.2.2021 the appeal of the petitioner (appellant) was admitted but his prayer for stay of the impugned order, passed by the trial court, has been rejected.

While drawing the attention of the Court towards the order dated 3.2.2021, passed by the appellate authority, it has been vehemently submitted that the impugned order has been passed without assigning any reason and simply by stating that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence, his prayer for suspension of the order of the trial court, has been rejected.

Learned AGA, however controverts the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that still the appeal is pending before the appellate authority and the petitioner could not be approached this Court without the appeal being finally decided. Moreover the petitioner was involved in a heinous offence and therefore his prayer for suspension of the order of the trial court has been rightly rejected.

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, before proceeding further it is fruitful to peruse the definition of 'Goonda' as provided in the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 and the same is reproduced herein below:-

"2 (b) 'Goonda' mean a person who-

(i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of an offence punishable under Section 153 or Section 153-B or Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the said Code; or

(ii) has been convicted for an offence punishable under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956; or

(iii) has been convicted not less than thrice for an offence punishable under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 or the Public Gambling Act, 18967 or Section 25, Section 27 or Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959; or

(iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community; or

(v) has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women or girls; or

(vi) is a tout;"

Perusal of the above definition would suggest that 'Goonda' as defined under Section 2(b) of the U.P. Control Goondas Act is a person who either by himself or member or leader of gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of an offence punishable under Section 153 or Section 153-B or Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or under Chapter XXII of the said Code or has been convicted for an offence as provided under Section 2 (b) Sub-sections (ii) & (iii) of the Act.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is involved in only one criminal case and apart from that single case no other criminal activity of the petitioner has been stated in the judgment and order of the trial court.

It has been vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that only on the basis of single criminal case the provisions of Goondas Act could not be invoked. It has also been submitted that rejection of the prayer of the petitioner (appellant) by the appellate court with regard to the suspension of the operation of judgment of trial court without assigning any reason is against principles of natural justice as well as against law.

Needless to say that providing reasons for arriving at any finding is not only a requirement but also the soul and life of any judicial order as by assigning reasons the authority communicates to the person whose case is being adjudicated to be informed as to why his contention is not being accepted. The requirement of recording reasons by every judicial, quasi judicial or even administrative authority, entrusted with the task of adjudication affecting the individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognized facets of natural justice and violation of it may have the effect of vitiating the order passed by such authority. The reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based. They disclose how the mind has been applied to the subject matter in arriving on a decision. They reveal rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions arrived.

Perusal of the order dated 3.2.2021 would show that apart from mentioning that the offence is heinous, nothing else has been mentioned therein. It is also not apparent as to whether after admitting the appeal a date to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner was fixed.

In view of the above, instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the application of the petitioner moved for staying the order of trial court, afresh, after providing him an opportunity of being heard and also by passing a reasoned order within 30 days from today. Till the decision of the appellate authority on the stay application of the petitioner (appellant), operation of the order dated 31.12.2020 passed by District Magistrate, Shrawasti shall not be given effect to by the authorities.

The appellate authority is also directed to expedite disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner (appellant) and the same in any case be disposed of within two months form the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.

Order Date :- 18.3.2021

Muk