Allahabad High Court
Ashraf vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Law ... on 1 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 15 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2227 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ashraf Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Law Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Dubey,Martand Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. The case is called out.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State are present in the Court.
3. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking a direction to the opposite party no.2 to consider and decide the pending stay application dated 20.04.2022 filed with memo of Appeal No. 533/2022, U/s 6 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 and further stay the operation and implementation of order dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Opposite Party No.3 i.e. District Magistrate, District Amethi (as contained in Annexure No.-2 to this petition).
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already passed the order on 27.06.2022, and the petitioner is seeking parity with the aforesaid order.
5. On perusal of the order passed by the respondent no.2, Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, admitted the appeal against the order dated 31.3.2022, passed by respondent no.3, the District Magistrate, Amethi without any order on the prayer to stay the operation of the order of the District Magistrate, Amethi.
6. Apparently, the order of respondent no.2, as appellate authority is not reasonable. Filing of appeal does not amount stay of impugned order per se. If pending the appeal, impugned order is not stayed, the purpose of filing appeal would be frustrated.
7. In the present context, it would be pertinent to have a look upon the order of District Magistrate, Amethi impugned in the appeal pending before the respondent no.2, which refers three criminal cases pending against the accused-appellant, which are as follows:-
(i) Case Crime No.1543 of 2016, under Sections 147/148/149/325/336/504/506 I.P.C., PS Shivratanganj, District Amethi.
(ii) Case Crime No.63 of 2018, under Sections 147/148/149/323/504/506 I.P.C. & Section 3 (1Gha) & Section 3(2)(5 Ka) SC/ST Act, PS Shivratanganj, District Amethi.
(iii) Case Crime No.70 of 2020, under Sections 147/452/323/504/506/427/336 I.P.C PS Shivratanganj, District Amethi.
(iv) Beat information/G.D. Entry No. 25, dated 9.1.2021 converted into Section 107/116 CrPC PS Shivratanganj, District Amethi.
8. With regard to above criminal cases, the order of District Magistrate, Amethi itself mentioned the explanation submitted by the accused-appellant that there was a dispute between the parties to the incident wherein he has been bailed out by order of the competent court, as the aforesaid cases were instituted against him falsely. This would also be pertinent to keep into mind the definition of "Goonda" given under Section 2 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, which runs as under:-
"(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 offence 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 Suppression 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;"
9. On perusal of the order of District Magistrate, Amethi, it appears that there is no mention of offence affecting the general public at large, however, the dispute is between two individually litigating parties only, as such, while considering the matter under Goondas Act, there should be a discussion on the applicability of the Act also, but the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Amethi is lacking and non-speaking in this regard, as discussed hereinabove.
10. This is cardinal principle which must be observed by every authority while passing an order, from which civil/criminal consequences flow, to assign reasons for reaching at such conclusion. This rule to be observed by every authority while sitting into capacity of judicial, quasi judicial as well in administrative capacity whatsoever may be.
11. Learned A.G.A. at this stage submitted that he would have no objection, if any, such direction is issued to decide the interim stay on application or the appeal pending before the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya (respondent no.2) by way of speaking and well reasoned order within a period specified by the Court. 12. The necessity of service of notice upon the opposite parties are dispensed with as learned A.G.A. is present on behalf of all the opposite parties.
13. In view of the above facts, the opposite party no.2 i.e. the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya is hereby directed to decide the application for interim relief without any failure.
14. Meanwhile, the operation of impugned order of externment dated 31.3.2022, passed by the Opposite Party No.3 i.e. the District Magistrate, Amethi shall be kept in abeyance.
15. Deputy Registrar (Criminal) is to communicate the order of the Court promptly to the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya.
16. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.7.2022 Ujjawal