Back
MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN IDRISI
Harishchand Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Case called out.
2. Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta, Advocate has already filed caveat on behalf of Akhilesh Kumar Pathak, the complainant.
3. At the outset, Mr. Pawan Kumar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Akhilesh Kumar Pathak has no locus to oppose this writ petition.
4. Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta, Advocate submits that he may be permitted to withdraw his caveat application.
5. Prayer is allowed. Now, the writ petition is proposed to be heard on merit.
6. Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
7. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:
The court emphasized that administrative orders must be supported by adequate reasoning, and failure to demonstrate habitual offending renders such orders unsustainable.
The classification of an individual as a 'goonda' requires substantial evidence of habitual criminal behavior, not merely vague allegations or police reports.
The court established that a single incident does not suffice to classify an individual as a 'Goonda' under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, necessitating evidence of habitual offending.
The court held that the respondent failed to consider the most relevant consideration, namely, whether the petitioner had committed the alleged offenses within the six-month period specified in the e....
Goonda means a person who is covered by (i) of Section 2(b) or Clause (ii) or Clause (iii) or Clause (iv) or Clause (v) of the said Section. All the clauses are disjunctive as is evident from the use....
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
