Disposed

Satendra Tyagi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024CRLP/11544/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to stay coercive action under an exoneration order pending appeal. The court observed the stay application was unlawfully rejected. It directed the external order to remain in abeyance during appeal pendency and ordered final disposal within three months.

What did the court decide?

Externment order under challenge to remain in abeyance during pendency of appeal; appeal to be disposed within three months.

Satendra Tyagi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:118897

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11544 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Satendra Tyagi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Singh 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 prayers :-

¶8

I- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 passed by Respondent no. 2 Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut in Appeal No. 124 of 2024 (Satendra Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.) under Section 6 of U.P. Control of Goonda Act, 1970.

¶9

II- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent no. 2 Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut to expedite the appeal no. 124 of 2024 (Satendra Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.) under Section 6 of U.P. Control of Goonda Act, 1970, within stipulated period and the final disposal of appeal not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance of externment order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 Additional Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, District Ghaziabad in Case No. 386 of 2024 (State Vs. Satendra Tyagi) under Section 2/3 Goonda Act, 1970.

¶10

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 Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, District Ghaziabad under Section 2/3 U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 on the basis of report dated 16.03.2024 in Case No. 386 of 2024. Further submitted that in the meantime no such activity was done by the petitioner to create any kind of apprehension among the members of the society even though the order for externment was passed by Additional Police Commissioner, Commissionerate,

¶11

District Ghaziabad against which he filed an appeal before the Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut which was admitted and is still pending but the operation of order for externment was not stayed. In this way, during the pendency of appeal, if the effect 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 11.06.2024 during the pendency of appeal and to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.

¶12

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

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by the Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut 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 Meerut Division, Meerut 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.

¶14

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

¶15

It is also directed that Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut shall make 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.

¶16

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Suraj Srivastav

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satendra Tyagi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendra Tyagi 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

Aryan Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Master Shivansh Mishra, Thru. His Father Vishnu Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Tejas Pratap Singh vs State of Up and another

Abhay Dwivedi Alias Rocky and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Dharmpal Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Krishan Pal Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others