Writ petition challenging externment of petitioner from Kushinagar district under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act and dismissal of his appeal. Court found no reasons recorded for the externment order and no diligent appellate review; both orders quashed.
Orders dated 30.09.2024 and 14.11.2024 quashed; writ petition allowed; cost made easy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22815 of 2024 Petitioner :- Taufik Shah Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Ahmed Faizan,Sr. Advocate,Zaheer Asghar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
(i). Case Crime No. 398 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504 IPC,
(ii). Case Crime No. 805 of 2021, under Sections 504, 506, 408, 120-B IPC,
(iii). Beet Information Report No. 40 dated 08.05.2023,
(iv). Beet Information Report No. 51 dated 09.05.2023,
For ready reference, the show cause notice dated 03.07.2023 is reproduced herein below:-
"पपललसअधधकककपशधनगरननअपननककरकरलरपतकतक-आर-एसपध-53/2023 ददनकतक 15.06.2023 कन सकथपभकरधदनरधककथकनककसरकककचकलकनधररपपररददनकतक 09.05.2023 रदहतदकरकइसआशरककररपपररपसतपतदकरकगरकहह, दकअदभरपकएक शकदतरतथकमनवढदकसमककअपरकधधहह, लजससनजनमकनसममइसककभरएवतआततक वरकपहह।इसकनडरबशतथकआततककनककरणकपईभधवरदकइसकनदवरदगवकहधद न तथकएफ०आई०आर०दजरकरकननककसकहसनहहकरतकहह।इसकनदकरकभकरतधरदणड दवधकनकनअधरकर 16,17, तथक 22 ममवदणरतअपरकधधकपककररतदकरकजकतकहह। जनदहतममसमकजममखपलनआमदवचरणकरतकउदचतनहहहह, इसनजनपदकक सधमकओतसन बकहरदकरकजकनकउदचतहह।पपललसदकरकआपकनदवरददनमनअपरकधपतजधककतदकरक गरकहह।
1-मप0 अ 0 सत0 398/2022 धकरक 323,504 आई०पध०सध०।
3-वधरससचनकरपरसत0 40. समर 18:19 बजनददनकतक 08.05.2023 अतदकत।
4-वधरससचनकरपरसत0 51 समर 18:51 बजनददनकतक 09.05.2023 अतदकत।
अततममउपमकपकणडनरअपरलजलकमलजसरटनर (नरकदरक) कपशधनगरतथरधपरपसणरदवचकर करननकनउपरकनतआपकपइसककरणबतकओनपदरसदकरकआदनदशतकरतधहहतदकआप ददनकतक 14/07/2023 कपपसवकरनह 10 बजनमनरननरकरकलरममउपससथतहपकरअगलधदनरत दतलथकपउपससथतहपननतथकननकचलनहनतपपचकसहजकरर०ककएकजमकनतवकपचकस हजकरर०ककवरदकगतमपचलककदकलखलकरम, तथकसपषधकरण, पसतपतकरमदककरधन आपकपउकआखरकवअपरकधधकनआधकरपरलजलनसनदनषककलसतकरददरकजकर, सदव आपदकरकउकदतलथकपजमकनतमपचलककतथकसपषधकरणपसतपतनहहदकरकजकतकहह तपरहसमझकजकरनगकदकइससमबनधममआपकपकपछनहहकहनकहह, तदनपसकरआपकन दवरदगपण-दपषकनआधकरपरएकपकधरआदनश, पकररतकरददरकजकरनगक।"
Apart from above, respondent 4-Additional District MagistrateKushinagar referred to the report dated 09.05.2023 submitted by the Station Officer of Police Station-Kasya, wherein it was stated that petitioner is a vicious criminal, petitioner has committed offence, under Chapters 16, 17 and 22 of IPC, there is anxiety and terror in the public at large, no person of the public is ready to lodge a complaint against petitioner or to give evidence against petitioner, therefore, it is not conducive for the society to allow the petitioner to remain free.
petitioner filed his objection/reply dated 03.09.2024 to the show cause notice disputing the contents of the same. Petitioner explained his status in the criminal cases registered against him. It was further pleaded by petitioner that he is a peace loving person and has faith as well as respect for law, no offence under Chapters 16, 17 and 22 of IPC has been committed by him. Petitioner does not carry the image of a dreaded criminal nor there is fear, threat or anxiety amongst the members of the public at large on account of him, all the criminal cases lodged against petitioner are false, petitioner has been implicated in the criminal cases mentioned above maliciously and falsely. There is no independent witness of the occurrence on the basis of which, aforementioned criminal cases were registered against petitioner. Petitioner has already been enlarged on bail in aforementioned criminal cases, the adverse police report has been furnished by the Station Officer, Police Station-Kasya on false grounds. As such, the said report is misleading. On the above premise, it was thus prayed by petitioner that the show cause notice issued against him be withdrawn.
territorial limits of District-Kushinagar is not conducive for the society, therefore, none of the grounds raised and pressed in support of appeal found favour with the appellate authority.
passed against petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. He, therefore, submits that the order impugned dated 30.09.2024 passed by respondent-4 cannot be sustained either in law or on facts. To buttress his submission, he has relied upon paragraph 8 of the judgement of Supreme Court in M. P. Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 . The same reads as under:-
"The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought ,out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (1) "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older:"
Control of Goondas Act, 1970 is reproduced herein-below:
"2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -
(b) "Goonda" means a person who -
(i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of an offences punishable under section 153 or section 153-B or section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the said Code ; or
(ii) has been convicted for an offence punishable under the Suppersession of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 ; or
(iii) has been convicted not less than thrice for an offence punishable under the U. P. Excise Act, 1910 or the Public Gambling Act, 1867 or section 25, section 27 or section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959 ; or
(iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community ; or
(v) has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women or girls ; or
(vi) is a tout ;
Explanation - 'Tout' means a person who -
(a) accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means any public servant or member of Government, Parliament or of State Legislature, to do or forbear to do anything or to show favour or disfavor to any person or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central or State Government, Parliament or State Legislature, any local authority, corporation, Government Company or public servant ; or
(b) procures, in consideration of any remuneration moving from any legal practitioner interested in any legal business, or proposes to any legal practitioner or to any person interested in legal business to
procure, in consideration of any remuneration moving from either of them, the employment of legal practitioner in such business ; or
(c) for the purposes mentioned in explanation (a) or (b), frequents the precincts of civil, criminal or revenue courts, revenue or other offices, residential colonies or residences or vicinity of the aforesaid or railway or bus stations, landing stages, lodging places or other places of public resort ; or
(vii) is a house grabber.
Explanation - 'House-grabber' means a person who takes or attempts to take or aids or abets in taking unauthorized possession or having lawfully entered unlawfully remains in possession, of a building including land, garden, garages or out-houses appurtenant to a building.
[(viii) is involved in offences punishable under the Regulation of Money Landing Act, 1976 ;
(ix) is involved in offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1966 and the Indian Forest Act, 1927 ;
(x) is involved in illegally transporting and/or smuggling of cattle and indulging in acts in contravention of the provisions in the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 ;
(xi) is involved in human trafficking for purposes of commercial exploitation, forced labour, bonded labour, child labour, sexual exploitation, organ removing and trafficking, beggary and the like activities."
03.07.2023 i.e. almost one year prior to the show cause notice. He therefore concludes that simply on the basis of the criminal cases registered against petitioner upto the year 2021 as detailed above, petitioner cannot be classified as a goonda within the provisions of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. To lend legal support to his above submission, he has referred to paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the judgement rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12979 of 2024 (Wahid @ Abdul Wahid Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) decided on 02.09.2024. For ready reference, the same are reproduced herein below:-
"10. A perusal of the notice dated 30.3.2024 reveals that it is consisted of three criminal cases lodged against the petitioner and that was the cause of passing the order under Section 3(3) of the Act for his externment from the boundaries of district Ghaziabad. It further reveals from the perusal of the said show cause notice that it does mention general nature of material allegations which makes the said notice bad in law in view of the law laid down in Bhim Sen Tyagi vs. State of U.P., 1999 (39) ACC 321, Shiv Prakash Dubey @ Kattu vs. State of U.P. and another, 2007(2) AcrJ 506 and Rajkumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009(1) AcrJ 314.
11. The Court takes notice of this fact that three criminal cases and one beat information are assigned to the present petitioner, which are described in paragraph 2 of this judgment. Though any criminal activity of a person may be taken as a challenge to the law and order and a crime against society, but however, the criminal cases assigned to the petitioner are somehow of a personal nature and category and moreover it is also notable that out of the three criminal cases two cases are said to be committed in the year 2016 and thereafter in a span of about seven years no criminal activity on the part of the petitioner was disclosed in the impugned order and this situation raises a genuine question that if for a period of about seven years the petitioner never indulged in any criminal activity and the next criminal case was assigned to him in the year 2023, how the Additional Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, Ghaziabad was satisfied that the petitioner falls within the category of
'goonda', as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act. In the circumstances of this case, it appears that a very hyper technical approach has been adopted by the Additional Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, Ghaziabad while passing the impugned order dated 10.4.2024.
12. In Shankar Ji Shukla vs. Ayukt, Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad and others, 2005(52) ACC 638 it has been held that a person cannot be held to be 'goonda' only on the basis of one or two acts, he can be held to be goonda only when he is in habit of committing repeated offence. The same view has been expressed in Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shanker Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (1) ACrJ 207."
"1. Heard Shri Saumitra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents, and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned Notice under section 3(10 of the U.P Control of Goondas Act, registered as Case No.401 of 2023 dated 31.7.2023 issued by Additional Commissioner of Police, Kotwali Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad Commissionerate.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned notice is bad in law. It does not contain the general nature of material allegations and on the identical circumstances co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already allowed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2895 of 2023 (Idu Ali vs. State of U.P. and another) vide order dated 20.02.2023 by setting aside the impugned notice and setting the District Magistrate at liberty to issue fresh notice in accordance with law. The said order is quoted as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.
The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the
impugned notice dated 11.01.2023 issued by respondent no.2 (District Magistrate, Firozabad), under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act.
The basic contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said notice is bad in law as it does not contain the general nature of material allegations.This is particularly so, for the reason that if the notice dated 11.01.2023, issued under Section 3 of the Act of 1970, does not conform to the mandatory requirements of the Statute, all proceedings, including the order impugned, have to fall.
On the other hand, learned AGA has frankly and fairly accepted that the notice in the present case does not set out the general nature of the material allegations against the petitioner. He fairly submitted that this defect in the notice does not handicap the petitioner in making his representation. He further submitted that it is evident from the notice itself that petitioner would resort to abuse and encourage the people for committing the anti-social activities. Petitioner has criminal history of one case and one beat report and the crime number and sections have also been mentioned in the notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to two Full Bench decisions in Ramji Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others; 1981 Cri LJ 1083 and Bhim Sen Tyagi v. State of U.P. through D.M. Mahamaya Nagar, 1999 (2) JIG 192 (All) (FB).
In Ramji Pandey's case (supra), it has specifically been observed in paragraph 7 of the judgment that although the expression "material allegations" has not been defined by that Act, according to the dictionary meanings, the word "material" means "important and essential", "of significance". The word "allegation" means statement or assertion of facts. Thus, the notice under Section 3(1) should contain the essential assertions of facts in relation to the matters set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. It needs not refer to any evidence or other particulars or details. The names of witnesses, and persons who may have made the complaint against the person against whom action is proposed to be taken or the time, date and place of the offence committed by the person needs not be mentioned in the notice. There is a distinction between the "general
nature of material allegations" and "particulars of allegations". In accordance with the former expression, the notice needs not give any details of the allegations, instead the requirement of law would be satisfied if the notice contains a general statement of facts which need not contain any details or particulars. In Ram Pandey's case, where there were allegations that, (a) the petitioner was a goonda, (b) his movements were causing alarm, danger and harm to the lives and properties of the persons within the circle of P.S.-Sikandarpur and there was reasonable ground for believing that he was engaged in the commission and abetment of offences punishable under Chapters XI, XII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code, and (c) the witnesses were not willing to give evidence against him by reason of apprehension on their part as regards their safety and danger to their persons and personal property. Regarding the aforesaid sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), the material allegations of general nature were that there were various cases pending against the petitioner and the crime numbers and sections of those cases had been given in the notice and it was mentioned therein whether the petitioner had been convicted or acquitted in the cases or they were pending. In spite of mention of the crime numbers and sections and status of those cases, the notice in Ramji Pandey's case (supra) was held not to contain the general nature of material allegations and it was struck down.
In the present case also, nothing more than mention of the crime number and sections is all that we find, instead of the general nature of material allegations. A list of case crimes/first information reports/beat report registered against the petitioner does not satisfy the test of a valid notice under Section 3(1) carrying the "general nature of material allegations". Truly, the notice, on the foundation of which the order impugned has been made, is strictly in the teeth of the law laid down consistently by this Court; particularly, the Full Bench decision in Ramji Pandey (supra) and reiterated in Bhim Sain Tyagi (supra). A notice under Section 3(1) of the kind that is the foundation of proceedings here has been held in Bhim Sain Tyagi (supra) and in earlier decisions also, to violate the minimum guarantee of the opportunity that the Statute envisages for a person proceeded with/against under the Act of 1970. Thus, in this case, the impugned order, founded as it is, on a notice under Section 3(1) of the Act, stands
vitiated by defects that go to the root of the matter.
In above terms, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned notice dated 11.01.2023 is hereby quashed/set-aside as it is bereft of the general nature of material against the petitioner as is mandatorily required under Section 3(1) of the Act. However, the District Magistrate, Firozabad shall be at liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.
No order as to costs."
4. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the same.
5. In such view of the matter, the present petition is allowed in terms of the above quoted judgment.
6. The impugned Notice under section 3(10 of the U.P Control of Goondas Act, registered as Case No.401 of 2023 dated 31.7.2023 issued by Additional Commissioner of Police, Kotwali Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad Commissionerate, is hereby quashed. However, the authority concerned shall be at liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law."
With reference to above, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the observations made by the Court in aforementioned judgment/order are squarely attracted in the present case as the show cause notice issued to petitioner does not fulfill the requirement of law.
and circumstances, the case of petitioner falls within the ambit and scope of Section 2 (b) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 or not. It is therefore urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that the appellate authority has failed to duly exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. The appellate authority has thus not exercised it's jurisdiction diligently but in a casual and caviler fashion. Consequently, the order of the appellate authority being unsustainable in law and fact, is also liable to be quashed by this Court.
fact. Respondent-4 has adopted a hyper technical approach in passing the impugned order dated 30.09.2024. The appellate authority has simply concurred with the view expressed by respondent-4 by passing an order of affirmance. The order impugned dated 14.11.2024 passed by the appellate authority i.e. respondent-2, Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur does not reflect that an attempt was made by the appellate authority i.e. respondent-2, to examine and evaluate the grounds raised and pressed by the petitioner in support of the appeal filed by him. The appellate authority has simply mentioned the facts of the case, the grounds raised on behalf of petitioner in support of appeal and on the basis thereof has drawn an abrupt conclusion that since petitioner is a man of criminal antecedents, no illegality can be attached to the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by respondent-4-Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Kushinagar in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 3 (3) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. As such no reason has been assigned by the appellate authority regarding the legality of the order dated 30.09.2024. The appellate authority has miserably failed to examine the appeal in the light of provisions contained in Section 2 (b) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 and further wwhether the show cause notice issued to the petitioner is in confirmity with the provisions of Act and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court as mentioned above. Though on behalf of the State, various adverse facts were pleaded i.e. petitioner is vicious criminal, on account of conduct of petitioner, there is fear and despair in the public at large, no person is ready to lodge an F.I.R. or give evidence against petitioner but this Court finds that no attempt was made on behalf of State to evidence the said facts by leading cogent and reliable evidence.There is no recital regarding the same in the order impugned.
Order Date :- 12.12.2024/Imtiyaz
Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Was the externment order under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act validly passed with recorded reasons and subjective satisfaction?
Did petitioner qualify as a goonda under Section 2(b) given stale criminal cases?
Did the appellate authority adequately examine the appeal grounds?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M. P. Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election CommissionerRelied on¶24
M. P. Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 · Who else cites this
Wahid @ Abdul Wahid Vs. State of U.P. and 3 othersReferred¶17
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12979 of 2024 (Wahid @ Abdul Wahid Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others)
Nazim Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶18
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15542 of 2023 (Nazim Vs. State of U.P.)
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Taufik Shah
State Of U.P.
Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Kushinagar
Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
