Disposed

Monu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2021CRLP/23761/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an expired externment order and a dismissed appeal was filed under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act. The court held that the orders had lapsed and no cause of action survived, rendering the petition infructuous and disposed of the matter without hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition is disposed of as infructuous due to lack of cause of action.

Monu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23761 of 2016

¶3

Petitioner :- Monu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer;

¶7

"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.2.2016 passed by Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut in appeal No.22 of 2014-15 and order dated 16.7.2015 passed by respondent No.3 in Computer Case No.D-2014110800267 (State Vs. Monu), under section 3/4 U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat."

¶8

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 16.07.2015 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 18.02.2016, 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.

¶9

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 six months 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

¶12

From the perusal of the externment order, it is not disputed that the same is

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶16

No order as to cost.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.7.2021 SFH

Monu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Boby Vs State of U.P. and Others

Aash Mohammad and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Chandra Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Binder Alias Devendra Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sagir and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Laxmi Narayan Varma Vs State of U.P. and Another