The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an expired externment order and a dismissed appeal under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, holding that no cause of action survives as the orders are no longer operative.
The writ petition was disposed of without deciding it on merits; no order as to cost.
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. - 22095 of 2019
Petitioner :- Mahendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.D. Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer;
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned appellate order dated 29.08.2019 passed by Commissioner, Azamgarh Region, Azamgar in Appeal No.314/M, Case No.00977 of 2019 (Computerized Case No.201915000000977 (Mahendra Vs. District Magistrate, Mau) under Section 6(1) U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, as well as order dated 3.4.2019 passed by District Magistrate, Mau in Case No.360 of 2017 (Computer Case No.D201715510386) State Vs. Mahendra, u/s 3(1) of U.P. Goondas Act, 1970 ( Annexure No.3 & 6) respectively".
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 without considering the submissions made by the petitioner passed the externment order dated 3.04.2019 and 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 Commissioner, respondent no.2. 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 29.08.2019, 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 AGA 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 one month and the appeal against the said order has also been dismissed, so in the present writ petition nothing remain 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 Commissioner, respondent no.2, 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 decide on merit, 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 cost.
Order Date :- 14.7.2021 SFH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking quashing of an expired externment order and a dismissed appeal survives when no cause of action remains.
Whether the petitioner has a maintainable cause of action given the expiry of the underlying orders.
If no pending adverse order exists, can the apprehension of future disadvantage sustain continued legal proceedings?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahendra
State Of U.P.
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
