Disposed

Saddam Hussain v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2024CRLP/21828/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Article 226 sought a direction to decide an appeal and stay application filed under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act within a stipulated time, citing the Supremacy Court's judgment on avoiding a swinging pendulum. The court disposed of the petition by directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal within two months and stayed the impugned order during that period.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's appeal and stay application must be decided by the Appellate Authority within two months. The externment order dated 08.10.2024 is stayed for two months.

Saddam Hussain vs State of Up and 2… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:196698

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21828 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Saddam Hussain Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jatin Kumar Mishra,Rohan Gupta,Vertika Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Miss Vertika Srivastava, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents 1 to 3.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Petitioner-Saddam Husssain has approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer;-

¶9

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

¶10

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut to decide the interim application/appeal preferred by the petitioner within a stipulated period of time as may be determined by this Hon'ble Court. It is further prayed that the operation of the order dated 08.10.2024 be stayed during the pendency of the interim application/appeal filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶11

ii. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶12

To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by respondent-3 Additional Commissioner, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, District-Ghaziabad, petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent-2 Commissioner (Meerut Division), Meerut Zone, Meerut in terms of Section 6(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act. Along with the memo of appeal, petitioner also filed a stay application dated 24.10.2024. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than one and

¶14

half months has rolled by from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 24.10.2024, no order has been passed by the Appellate Authority on the stay application appended along with memo of appeal nor the appeal itself has been finally decided by the Appellate Authority. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Mool Chand Yadav and Another Vs. Raja Buland Sugar Company Ltd. Rampur and Others (1982) 3 SCC 484 , he submits that during the pendency of appeal, the Court should not permit a swinging pendulum. Admittedly, the life of order impugned in appeal is 6 months and in case, no interim order is passed by the Appellate Authority, the purpose of appeal itself shall stand frustrated. He, therefore, submits that in view of aforesaid exceptional circumstance of the present case, respondent-2 Commissioner (Meerut Division), Meerut Zone, Meerut is liable to be directed by this Court to decide the stay application filed by petitioner along with memo of appeal referred to above within a time bound period.

¶15

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present writ petition. Learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Five Judges Bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207 , no relief as prayed for can be granted by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner with reference to the record at this stage.

¶16

Having heard, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents 1 to 3 and upon perusal of record, this Court find that admittedly an order of externment was passed against petitioner on 08.10.2024. The life of externment order is 6 months. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.10.2024, petitioner has filed an appeal in terms of Section 6(1) of the U.P. Control and Goondas Act before the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent-2 Commissioner (Meerut Division), Meerut Zone, Meerut. Along with memo of appeal, the petitioner also appended a stay application seeking stay of the order dated 08.10.2024. However, even though a period of more than one and half months has rolled by, the Appellate Authority has not passed any order on the stay application filed by the petitioner. In view of above and also the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav and Another (Supra) , the Appellate Authority is, therefore, liable to be directed by this Court to decide the appeal filed by petitioner within a time bound period and further consider

¶17

the stay application within a time bound period.

¶18

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, this Court find that in view of above and the order proposed to be passed, no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

¶19

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to Appellate Authority i.e. respondent-2 Commissioner (Meerut Division), Meerut Zone, Meerut to decide the appeal filed by petitioner in terms of Section 6(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act within a period of 2 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The effect and operation of the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by respondent-3 Additional Commissioner, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, District-Ghaziabad shall remain stayed for a period of two months from today.

¶20

Order Date :- 16.12.2024 Vinay

¶21

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

Saddam Hussain v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam Hussain v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Prajapati vs State of Up and 3 Others

Chhatra Pal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Rashmi Saraswat and 2 Others vs State of Up. and Another

Devendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Nayab Ali and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Angad Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and Another