Disposed

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

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2023CRLP/2741/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed against a District Magistrate's externment order and the Commissioner's failure to consider a stay application. The Court directed the Commissioner to dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously within three weeks and stayed the externment order until the appeal is decided.

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner directed to dispose of the appeal within three weeks; the externment order stayed pending the decision.

Anil Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2741 of 2023 Petitioner :- Anil Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶3

1- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. Perused the material available on record.

¶4

2- The present writ petition has been filed in the nature of writ of certirorari for the following relief:-

¶5

''(i)- Issue a writ, order or dierction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned externment order dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by District Magistrate, District Shamli in Case No. 89 of 2022, Computerized Case No. D202209720000089 (State Vs. Anil) under Section ¾ of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, Police Station-Thana Bhawan, District-Shamli.

¶6

(ii)- issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 3/ Commissioner, Shaharanpur Division, Shaharanpur to decide the appeal filed bythe petitioner as Case No. 1719 of 2022, Computerized Case No. C202209000001719 (Anil Vs. State of U.P) pending before the Court of Commissioner, Shaharanpur Division, Shaharanpur, expeditiously, if possible within the stipulated period of one month.”

¶7

3- The District Magistrate Shamli, passed an externment order for six months regarding the petitioner on dated 29.11.2022, whereby the petitioner has been banished for a period of six months, from the limits of District Shamli. Aggrieved by this order of District Magistrate, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Shaharanpur Division, Shaharanpur, who vide order dated 08.12.2022 admitted and registered the appeal, but did not pass any order on his stay application regarding stay the operation of above-stated order dated 29.11.2022 of District Magistrate.

¶8

Aggrieved by this order of the Commissioner (appellate court), the petitioner preferred present this writ petition.

¶9

4- It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Magistrate, Shamli passed the above-stated externment order dated 29.11.2022 against the petitioner under Section ¾ U.P. Control of Goondas Prevention Act, 1970, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) Police StationKotwali, District- Shamli. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Shaharanpur Division, Shaharanpur under Section 6 of the Act, which has been admitted, but on his stay application, pending before the Commissioner alongwith a memo of appeal, no order has been passed which is prejudicial and detrimental to his rights.

¶10

5- Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is well settled law that in an appeal of right against an order of drastic consequence such as externment, the rule is that the operation of the order under challenge is to remain suspended during pendency of the appeal. However, the Appellate Court/Commissioner by means of impugned order admitted the appeal of petitioner, but did not pass any order on the application of the petitioner for interim relief (during the pendency of the appeal). It is also submitted that the appeal is protracting and is not likely to be disposed of/decided in near future.

¶11

6- The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that in case the appeal is not disposed of expeditiously, it would frustrate the very purpose of filing of the appeal.

¶12

7- Having considered the matter in all its ramifications, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be best served, if the authority concerned is directed to dispose of the appeal, expeditiously.

¶13

8- In the result, at this stage, the petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the Commissioner, Shaharanpur Division, Shaharanpur, before whom the aforesaid appeal is pending, shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal on its intrinsic merits expeditiously, preferably within a period not exceeding three weeks, from the date of this order. Till the decision of the appeal, the operation of the externment order dated 29.11.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Shamli in Case No. 89 of 2022 (State Vs. Anil), under Section 3/4 of the Act, shall remain stayed.

¶14

Order Date :- 23.2.2023

¶15

Satish

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil 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

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sazid Ali Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Harishchand Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Aslam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Premlata Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others