Back
[2011(1) ADJ 434 (LB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : RAJ MANI CHAUHAN, J.
LALANI PANDEY @ VIJAY SHANKER PANDEY .....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....Opposite Parties
(Writ Petition No. 5905 (M/S) of 2010, decided on 16th December, 2010)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The petitioner, Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shanker Pandey, challenged an externment order issued under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, which was passed by the District Magistrate, Raebareli, and subsequently upheld by the appellate authority (!) .
The order was based on allegations that the petitioner was involved in criminal cases and had a reputation for terrorizing the community, with two specific cases cited in the notice. However, the petitioner argued that only two cases were considered, and these alone do not establish habitual involvement in offenses, which is a requirement for classification as a ‘goonda’ (!) (!) .
The petitioner contended that he was not given a proper opportunity to present his case, citing multiple adjournments and delays in filing a written reply, which he claimed violated principles of natural justice (!) (!) .
The definition of ‘goonda’ under the Act includes individuals who habitually commit or attempt to commit certain offenses or who are generally reputed to be dangerous to the community. The term ‘habitually’ is interpreted as involving repeated or persistent acts of similar nature, not isolated incidents (!) (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that a single or two criminal cases, especially when registered upon magistrate’s orders following applications by complainants, do not suffice to establish habitual criminal involvement. The order must be based on evidence showing a pattern of repeated offenses (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court noted that the criminal history of the petitioner included nine cases, but only two were referenced in the order, and the others could not be considered as grounds for declaring him a ‘goonda’ since they were not part of the record relied upon in the order (!) (!) .
The judgment concluded that the authorities failed to properly consider whether the petitioner was habitually involved in the commission of offenses as required by the law. Consequently, the orders of externment and the appellate decision were found to be illegal and were quashed (!) .
The order of externment was set aside, and the petition was allowed on the grounds that the legal requirements for declaring someone a ‘goonda’ were not satisfied, and the principles of natural justice had not been fully observed (!) .
Would you like a detailed legal analysis or assistance with drafting related documents?
Hon’ble Raj Mani Chauhan, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shanker Pandey, S/o Late Ram Kumar Pandey, R/o Korwa, P.S. Saraini, District Raebereli for issuing a writ of certiorary to quash the impugned externment order dated 15.7.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Raebareli (opposite party No. 3 which is contained in Annexure 2) as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 8.9.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow (opposite party No. 2 which is contained in Annexure 1) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid externment order.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be briefly stated as under:
The Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Raebareli on 16.11.2009 issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) with the allegation that on the basis of information received by him, it appeared that Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shanker Pandey (petitioner), S/o Late Ram Kumar Pandey, R/o Korwa, P.S. Saraini, District Raebereli either commits offence himself or abets others to commit offences punishable under Chapter XV, XVI and XVIII of the Indian Penal Code. His general reputation is that he terrorises the people and is dangerous to the community. He operates his activity within the area of the district Raebareli. No person is ready to give evidence against him on account of his arduous activities. He is an accused in Crime No. 345/09, under Sections 452/323/504/506/324 IPC and 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act which was registered on the written report of Kallu Pasi, S/o Gayadin Pasi, R/o Village Korwa, P.S. Saraini, District Raebareli. The Investigating Officer of the case found sufficient evidence against him consequently he submitted charge-sheet against him. Another case is registered against him at Crime No. 1029/09, under Sections 436/504/506/427 IPC and 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act on the written report of Jhurakhan Pasi, S/o Sukhdin Pasi, R/o Katikaha, P.S. Saraini, District Raebareli The Investigating Officer found sufficient evidence against him consequently he submitted charge-sheet against him.
3. The petitioner by the said notice was called upon to furnish written explanation as to why an externment order be not passed against him under Section 3 (3) of the Act. The petitioner was served with the notice, he appeared before the learned Additional District Magistrate. He was allowed so many dates to file his written explanation but he could not file the same consequently the learned District Magistrate on the basis of materials available on record held him to be goonda and ordered for his externment for a period of six months by the impugned order dated 15.7.2010. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate preferred an appeal under Section 6 of the Act before the learned Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. The learned Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow found that the finding of the learned District Magistrate was based on documentary evidence, therefore, the impugned order passed by him did not suffer from any illegality consequently he dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment and order dated 8.9.2010 which has given rise to the present writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of hearing by the learned District Magistrate, therefore, the impugned order passed by him is against the principle of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.
6. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the word ‘goonda’ has been defined under the Act that a person ca
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
