Disposed

Tayyub v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024CRLP/10665/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, in a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, directed the Commissioner, Meerut Mandal, to decide a pending criminal appeal within 60 days and stayed the operation of an externment order. The A.G.A. had no objection to the direction.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.2 to decide the appeal within 60 days; stayed the operation of the externment order dated 18.04.2024.

Tayyub vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113321

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10665 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Tayyub Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Raj Pandey,Shubham Pandey 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 has been filed with prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 i.e. Commissioner, Meerut Mandal Meerut to conclude the Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2004 (Tayyub vs. State of U.P.) within short stipulated time and this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect and operation of order dated 18.04.2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Bulandshahar in Case No.3245 of 2023 (Computerized Case No.D202311170003245) under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gundas Control Act, 1970 (State vs. Tayyub) Police Station Khurja Dehat, District Bulandshahar, during the pendency of the instant appeal pending before the Commissioner, Meerut Mandal, Meerut.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case externment order was passed on 18.04.2024 against the petitioner u/s 3(1) U.P. Control of Gunda Act, 1970 by the Additional District Magistrate, Bulandshahar without considering the material on record against which he preferred an appeal before the learned court of Commissioner, Meerut Mandal Meerut which was admitted but no order has been passed on the said application and it is still pending. Therefore, request to direct the learned court concerned to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and to stay the operation of externment order till the disposal of appeal.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A., it is expedient to direct the respondent no.2 i.e.

¶11

Commissioner, Meerut Mandal Meerut to make its endeavour to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.

¶12

In the meantime the operation of order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Bulandshahar shall remain in abeyance.

¶13

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally with the aforesaid direction.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.7.2024 Ashok Gupta

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tayyub v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tayyub v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan vs State of Up and 2 Others

Hanumat Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ajay Kumar Jain vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shivam Singh vs State of Up and 4 Others

Sheetal Sharma and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Deepak Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another