Quashed

Gaurav Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2024CRLP/18263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order rejecting a stay application under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act due to the Appellate Authority's failure to record specific reasons, not exercising jurisdiction diligently.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20.09.2024 is quashed. The appeal shall be decided within one month. The effect and operation of the order dated 02.09.2024 shall remain stayed till 18.11.2024.

Gaurav Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18263 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Gaurav Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar,Jai Prakash Prasad,Savan Kumar

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Prasad, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. representing respondents 1 to 4.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Petitioner-Gaurav Kumar has approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by Respondent-2, Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in Case No. C202411000001961 (Gaurav Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), under Section 6 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, whereby the stay application filed by petitioner in aforementioned appeal has been rejected.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that admittedly by the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by Respondent-3, Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), District-Baghpat, petitioner was exterminated for the period of 6 months. In view of above, aforesaid order impugned in appeal has serious civil consequences. The Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut has rejected the stay application filed by petitioner without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter. The stay application filed by petitioner was rejected without recording any specific reason for not grant stay order. He, therefore, contends that the Appellate Authority has exercised it's jurisdiction in a casaul and cavalier fashion and not diligently. As such, the order impugned is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶10

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present writ petition. He submits that the order impugned is perfectly just and legal and therefore, not liable to be interfered with by this Court.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned

¶12

A.G.A. representing respondents 1 to 4 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the stay application filed by petitioner in aforementioned appeal preferred by him has been rejected on the vague finding that no sufficient evidence or gound has emerged so as to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 02.09.2024. No specific finding has been returned by the Appellate Authority for refusing stay of the order dated 02.09.2024 during the pendency of appeal. As such, the Appellate Authority has failed to exercise it's jurisdiction diligently. Consequently, the order impugned dated 20.09.2024 is, hereby, quashed.

¶13

It is further provided that the Appellate Authority shall proceed to decide the aforementioned appeal filed by petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The effect and operation of the order dated 02.09.2024, which has been impugned in the appeal preferred by the petitioner shall remain stayed till 18.11.2024.

¶14

Order Date :- 15.10.2024

¶15

Vinay

¶16

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

Gaurav Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases