A writ petition challenging an expired externment order and a dismissed appeal was dismissed as the cause of action no longer survived. The court held that no harm existed for the petitioner to adjudicate and possible future grievances should be addressed in new cases.
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. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14064 of 2019
Petitioner :- Yaseen Alias Yamin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Sri Mohammad Waseem, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4, Commissioner Bareilly Division, Bareilly to decide Appeal No. 00087 of 2019 (Yaseen alias Yameen Vs. State of U.P.) filed against the order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3, Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Bareilly, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 by which the petitioner has been externed from District Bareilly, for a period of six months, as well as the stay application filed therein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice under Section 3(1) U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been issued to the petitioner for submitting representation/reply, thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation/reply but the respondent No.3, Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Bareilly without considering the submissions made by the petitioner passed the externment order dated 31.12.2018 and the petitioner was directed to remain outside the district for a period of six months being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, under Section 6 of the Act before the respondent no. 4, Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly. The learned Commissioner also without considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in the appeal and without giving opportunity of hearing dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.03.2019, thereafter, the petitioner by means of the present writ petition challenged both the orders before this Court for quashing the same on the ground that both the orders are bad in the eye of law.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that the present writ petition has now become infructuous due to reason that at
present no cause of action survives in the present writ petition as the externment order passed against the petitioner was only for a period of six months and the appeal against the said order has also been dismissed, so in the present writ petition nothing remains to be decided nor there is any adverse order against the petitioner for which he is aggrieved.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder argued that there is an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the respondent authorities may take disadvantage of the impugned orders in future against the petitioner.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.
From the perusal of the externment order, it is not disputed that the same is already expired and the appeal filed against the said externment order before the respondent no. 4, Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, under section 6 of the Act is also dismissed and after lapse of so many years, there is no externment order against the petitioner nor any fresh order exists in the present case, which causes any harm to the petitioner. In the present writ petition nothing remains to be decided on merits, as no cause of action survives in the present writ petition at present nor there is any adverse order against the petitioner, for which he is prejudiced.
The apprehension of the petitioner that the authorities may take disadvantage of the impugned orders in future against him is also not justified unless he is not involved in any other criminal case. If he is aggrieved by any other order passed by the respondents he may approach the competent court of law for redressal of his grievances.
With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of .
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 15.7.2021 SA/SFH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging an expired externment order and a dismissed appeal can survive given the absence of a continuing cause of action.
Whether an apprehension of future disadvantage by authorities justifies maintaining an injunction over expired orders.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Yaseen Alias Yamin
State Of U.P.
Commissioner Bareilly Division, Bareilly
Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Bareilly
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
