Allowed

Hakim Beg v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2023CRLP/19305/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for certiorari, the Allahabad High Court quashed the Commissioner of Jhansi’s order declining a stay on an externment order. The High Court directed the external order remain in abeyance during the appeal’s pendency and set a three-month timeline for the Commissioner to decide the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the externment order remain in abeyance during the pendency of the appeal and ordered the Commissioner to decide the appeal within three months.

Hakim Beg Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:236587

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19305 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Hakim Beg Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Sadab Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been moved with following prayer :-

¶8

I- Issue a writ, order or direction for Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 8.11.2023 passed by Commissioner, Jhansi in Appeal No. 1126 of 2023 (Computerized Case No. C202306000001126) under Section 6 of the U.P. Control of Goonda Act arising out of order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue in Case No. 503 of 2023, under Section 3/4 U.P. Control of Goonda Act, Police Station Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an order for externment for a period of 6 months was passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jalaun under Section 3/4 U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 on the basis of beat report based on Case Crime No. 82 of 2022, under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Case crime No. 275 of 2020, under Section 3/25 Arms act, Case Crime No 94 of 2020, under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Case Crime No. 01 of 2019, under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, Case Crime No. 08 of 2019, under Section 3/5 Cow Slaughter Act, Case Crime No. 152 of 2018, under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Case Crime No. 231 of 2020, under Section 2/3 Gangster Act. Further submitted that in the meantime no such activity was done by the petitioner to create any kind of apprehension in the members of the society even though the order for externment was passed by Additional District Magistrate against which he filed appeal before the Commissioner, Jhansi which was admitted and is still pending but the operation of order for externment was not

¶10

stayed. In this way, during the pendency of appeal, if the affect of order in question is not stayed the purpose of appeal would be defeated, therefore, requested to direct the court concerned not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance of externment order dated 11.10.2023 during the pendency of appeal and to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. urged that in this case order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate on the basis of material on record and against which appeal was filed but he has nothing to object about the stay of operation of order for externment during the pendency of appeal.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, perusal of record and the order passed by the Commissioner at the time of admission of appeal, it appears that though the appeal has been filed and is still pending before the court of Commissioner for final hearing but the application filed by the petitioner for staying the implementation of the order in question was rejected which cannot be said to be lawful.

¶13

As a result, it is directed that the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate for externment and under challenge in appeal shall remain in abeyance during the pendency of appeal.

¶14

It is also directed that Commissioner, Jhansi shall made his endeavour to decide the appeal of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶15

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶16

Order Date :- 14.12.2023 A. Singh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hakim Beg v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakim Beg v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Sumit Rawat Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Komal Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

X- Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Laik Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Monu @ Mohan Pratap Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Tejpal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another