Partly allowed

Khalid v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2019CRLP/4834/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a stay application in a pending appeal against an externment order. The court directed the opponent to decide the appeal expeditiously and stayed the execution of the externment order until its disposal.

What did the court decide?

Ordered Commissioner to dispose of the pending appeal within three months; order of externment dated 23.1.2019 stayed till disposal of appeal.

Khalid Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4834 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Khalid Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra,Ajay Kumar Giri

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra & Sri Ajay Kumar Giri, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA.

¶7

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.1.2019, passed by respondent no. 2 in Case no.00099 of 2019, Khalid Vs. State of U.P. under Section 6 U.P. Control of Goondas Act 1970 to the extent it relates to rejection of stay application in the pending appeal.

¶8

It is not disputed that proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Act were initiated against petitioner on the basis of Case Crime No.79 of 2018 under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act. The A.D.M. after notice, vide order dated 7.1.2019, passed an order of externment under Section 3 of the Act for a period of three months. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, which came to be admitted on 23.1.2019, but the accompanying stay application was rejected.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the appeal, the Commissioner ought to have stayed the operation of externment order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, else the purpose of filing an appeal would be frustrated.

¶10

It is well settled in law that once an appeal is admitted for hearing, operation of the order impugned before it, if it has serious/drastic consequences, operation of the same, is liable to be stayed. On the one hand, the Commissioner on 23.1.2019, admitted the appeal for hearing, but by the same stroke he rejected the stay application. The resultant situation is that even though appeal is slated for hearing before the appellate authority, a damocles sword is hanging over the petitioner on account of no interim order during the pendency of the appeal, which would be in the teeth of law.

¶11

No useful purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending in view of the order, which the Court proposes to pass hereunder.

¶12

The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to Commissioner of the Division to decide and dispose of the pending appeal, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order and till the disposal of the appeal, the order of externment dated 23.1.2019 passed by Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Bulandshahar, shall remain stayed.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner undertakes not to seek any adjournment before the appellate authority.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.2.2019 Ram Murti

Khalid v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalid v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Pankaj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Makhanchu Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Bhawan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Danish and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jamaluddin and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others