The Single Judge dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging orders under the U.P. Control of Goonda Act, 1970, finding the petition infructuous as the ostracism period had elapsed and noting no legal error in the lower courts' findings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9320 of 2005
Petitioner :- Sonoo Bajpai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.K. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,R.K. Tiwari
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
None is present on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition even in the revised call. Learned AGA is present and perused the record.
This writ petition has been preferred by Sonoo Bajpai against State of U.P and two others challenging the orders dated 05.05.2005 and 11.8.2005 passed by Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 421 of 2004 whereby the petitioner was ostracized from the district Kanpur Nagar for six months under section 3 of U.P. Control of Goonda Act, 1970 and Appeal No. 160 of 2005 was dismissed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur.
Learned A.G.A submitted that the impugned order was passed in legal way and after considering the evidence on record.
From perusal of record, it appears that six months have already been elapsed. No fruitful purpose would be served to keep this petition pending. Petition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.
From perusal of record, it transpires that against the order dated 05.05.2005 the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.5.2005.
From perusal of record, it also transpires that both the courts below have given concurrent findings on the point of facts and view taken by the both courts is possible view, hence, this Court is not supposed to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned courts below.
This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned.
Order Date :- 10.9.2018 Puspendra
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the courts below's orders under the U.P. Control of Goonda Act, 1970.
Whether the writ petition remains infructuous as the barred period for ostracism has elapsed.
Whether concurrent findings of fact compel the High Court to refuse interference.
Sonoo Bajpai
State Of U.P.
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
