Point of Law: Notice - Order of externment - Once a person is proceeded with against under Act of 1970, and externed under Section 3(3), classifying him as a goonda, order is certainly stigmatic - An order of externment envisages provision of opportunity to show cause, under Section 3(2).

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner questions an order of Ms. Selva Kumari J., the then District Magistrate, Firozabad, dated 13.03.2019, ordering him to be externed under Section 3(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970(hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1970”). The petitioner also challenges an appellate approval of the externment order by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, videhis order dated 23.05.2019, passed in Case No. 00719 of 2019.

2. This petition was presented on 07.06.2019, and came up for admission before this Court, for the first time, on 11.06.2019. On the said date, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner in support of motion to admit the petition, and the learned A.G.A. in opposition, the cause was adjourned to 04.07.2019. On 04.07.2019, the learned A.G.A. was granted four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit, and the petitioner, a rejoinder, within another two weeks. It appears that no counter affidavit was filed, and by the order dated 10.09.2019, two weeks and no more time was granted to the State to file a counter affidavit. Again, on 17.10.2019, further three weeks' time was granted, with a repetition of the stop order. Subsequently, on 10.09.2020 and 24.09.2020, the matter was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. The case again came up on 07.10.2020. On the said date, this Court took note of the fact that there was no return filed on behalf of the State. The petition was admitted to hearing and heard forthwith. Judgment was reserved.

3. It was urged as a preliminary objection on behalf of the State by the learned A.G.A. that this petition has become infructuous, inasmuch as the life of the externment order impugned had come to an end. The externment order was effective for a period of six months, and apparently, its operation was not suspended. The externment order is one dated 13.03.2019, and by a reckoning of the calendar, the learned A.G.A. submits that it has outlived itself. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, says that the order of externment adversely impacts his reputation in society, and, therefore, notwithstanding the fact that it has outlived its term of operation, the petitioner is entitled to question its validity and ask this Court to quash it. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, has relied on a decision of this Court in Rishav Raghav (Minor) v. State of U.P. & 2 Others, 2015 SCC OnLine All 8978. In that decision, the externment order had outlived its life, pending appeal, which had become infructuous, and yet this Court proceeded to examine the merits of the externment order and its affirmation in appeal. The orders were quashed on merits, bearing in mind the fact that if left undisturbed, would affect the petitioner's career, who, in that case, was a student and had to do a follow up of his studies and apply for a job. There are remarks in Rishav Raghav (supra)to the following effect :

21. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the respondent No. 2, who did not passed any order on the stay application and allowed the appeal to become infructuous.

22. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that present petition may be decided on merits after examining the records as the applicant is a student and his entire career would be spoiled, which would also affect his future, if the externment orders is not quashed, as he is a student and has to follow up studies and to get a job, under these circumstances the Court proceed to hear the matter on merits.

4. The learned A.G.A., on the other hand, says that the decision in Rishav Raghav was indicated not to serve as a precedent by the court, when it was specifically remarked :

30. .....The Court has interfere in this matter in a peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and it is