Disposed

Mohammad Aneesh v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2018CRLP/287/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition quashing an order rejecting a stay application under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act. Finding no just reason to interfere as the appeal is listed for hearing, the Court directed the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on merit by the specified date.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the pending appeal on merit by 10.01.2018; if not, re-hear petitioner and pass reasoned order.

Mohammad Aneesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 287 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohammad Aneesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Nisar Uddin,Saiyed Ishtiyaq Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.

¶5

This petition for writ is before us to quash the impugned order dated 31.10.2017 passed by Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar in Case No.24/2017/D-20170341075, under Section 3/4 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 and the order dated 07.12.2017 passed by Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur in Appeal No.415 of 2017, under Section 6 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, Police Station Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶6

The Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar while invoking the power under Section 3/4 of the Act, 1970 externed the petitioner from a period of six month from the limits of the Kanpur Nagar. An appeal as per the provision of Section 6 of the Act aforesaid is pending consideration before the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur. The Additional Commissioner under an order dated 7th December, 2017 refused the application of the petitioner seeking stay of the order passed by the District Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the stay application has been rejected by the Additional District Magistrate without assigning any reason and as such the order is apparently bad.

¶8

True, it is order passed by the Additional District Magistrate does not contain any reason and as such that is not in consonance with the law. It is well settled that every quasi judicial authority is required to pass speaking and reasoned order while deciding the application before it. However, from perusal of the order impugned, it reveals that the appeal is listed for final hearing on 10.01.2018, and as such, we do not find any just reason to interfere in this petition for writ.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the appellate authority to positively hear and dispose of the appeal on merit on 10.01.2018 itself. If the authority fails to consider and decide the appeal then hear the petitioner again on the stay application and pass appropriate order with reason.

¶10

Order Date :- 9.1.2018 A.Kr.*

¶11

[Ashok Kumar, J.] [Govind Mathur, J.]

Mohammad Aneesh v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Aneesh v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Kumar @ Sonu and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Balwant Raj Soni Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Shailendra Ameen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Anupam Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Mohammad Vasim Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Ashok Kumar Dubey and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.