Allahabad High Court
Moinuddin vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 3 October, 2023
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:63139
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7276 of 2023
Petitioner :- Moinuddin
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Mishra,Abhishek Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. The petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 8.8.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Amethi under section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act.
A further writ of mandamus directing respondents not to harass and compel the petitioner to leave the limits of district Amethi, consequence to order dated 8.8.2023 (Annexure No.1) has also been prayed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who has filed supplementary affidavit which is taken on record, and learned Additional Government Advocate as also perused the record.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 8.8.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Amethi suffers from illegality as the cases shown against the petitioner in the externment order are of different years with long gap. The first case was registered as case crime No.128 of 2016 whereas the second case is of the year 2016 registered as case crime No139 of 2021 and the last, i.e. the third case was registered in the year 2022 and registered as case crime No.60 of 2022. He further submits that on the basis of these three cases, the Commissioner, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya has rejected his application for interim relief vide order dated 28.8.2023, though not challenged in the present petition.
It is submitted that the definition of term 'Goonda' in the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 does not imply or cover the act(s) committed by the accused after a long gap of period and it cannot be termed as habitual. The acts alleged against the petitioner cannot be said to be persistent or continuing or repeated acts. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied on judgment of Supreme Court in Vijay Narain Singh versus State of Bihar and others (1984)3 SCC 14 as also judgment dated 6.2.2004 in Shankar Ji Shukla versus Ayukt, Upper Zila Magistrate passed by this court and a further judgment dated 16.8.2023 passed by this court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.6191 of 2023 Rahul versus State of U.P..
4.Considering the aforesaid facts, perusal of the record as also the judgments referred to above, it would be appropriate that the appeal be expedited at an early date.
5. The present petition is thus finally disposed of with a direction to Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya to consider and decide the petitioner's pending appeal as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of on month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
For a period of one month or till the disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier, effect and operation of the externment order dated 8.8.2023 (Supra) shall remain stayed.
6.Learned counsel for the petitioner, undertakes that the petitioner shall file the certified copy of this order alongwith an appropriate application within seven days from today, before respondent No.2.
Order Date :- 3.10.2023
kkb/
