Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajeev Misra, J.
Rajendra Singh @ Rajan – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 18106 of 2024
Decided On : 08-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Niraj Kumar Singh, Yogesh Kumar Singh
For the Respondent: G.A.

The court emphasized that administrative orders must be supported by adequate reasoning, and failure to demonstrate habitual offending renders such orders unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 - Sections 2(b) and 3(1) - Externment order - Petitioner challenged the order of externment for three months based on criminal antecedents - The Commissioner failed to record subjective satisfaction or prima facie findings of habitual offending - The Appellate Authority's dismissal of the appeal lacked thorough evaluation - The court found both orders unsustainable due to lack of reasoning and diligence. (Paras 11, 25, 26)

(B) Judicial Review - The validity of administrative orders must be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order itself, and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons later. (Para 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was externed from Varanasi for three months based on multiple criminal cases, but argued that these were outdated and did not establish habitual offending. (Paras 3, 8, 10)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the externment order was passed without adequate reasoning and failed to demonstrate that the petitioner was a habitual offender as defined by the Act. (Paras 26, 29)

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was a habitual offender under the Act and whether the orders were supported by adequate reasoning. (Paras 11, 26)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Commissioner did not provide sufficient reasoning for the externment order, and the Appellate Authority failed to properly evaluate the appeal, leading to a lack of diligence in exercising jurisdiction. (Paras 25, 26)

Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the orders of externment are quashed.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Misra, J.

1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents-1 to 3.

2. Perused the record.

3. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Rajendra Singh @ Rajan, challenging the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by respondent-3, Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Varanasi in Case No. 567 of 2023 (State Vs. Rajendra Singh @ Rajan), under section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, whereby petitioner has been exterminated from the territorial limits of District-Varanasi for a period of three months as well as the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by respondent-2, Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Appeal No. 2380 of 2024 (Rajendra Singh @ Rajan Vs. State of U.P.), under section 6(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, whereby aforementioned appeal filed by petitioner against the order dated 12.08.2024 has been dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that present writ petition be decided finally on the basis of material on record. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that he does not wish to file any counter affidavit to the writ petition.

5. In view of above, the present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself, without calling for a counter affidavit.

6. Record shows that Station House Officer of Police Station-Chitaipur, District-Varanasi submitted an adverse report dated 08.09.2023 against petitioner. The said report was forwarded by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Varanasi to respondent-3-the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Varanasi.

7. In response to above, respondent-3-Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Varanasi decided to initiate proceedings under the aforesaid Act against petitioner. Resultantly, Case No. 567 of 2024 (State Vs. Rajendra Singh @ Rajan), under section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 came to be registered against petitioner.

8. In the light of above, a show cause notice dated 25.09.2023 was issued by respondent-3-Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Varanasi to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why an order of externment be not passed against him. The basis of the show cause notice was the criminal antecedents of the petitioner which are as follows:

1. Case No. 044 of 2023, under sections 427,504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Rohaniya District- Varanasi

2. Case No. 070 of 2023, under sections 147, 504, 506, 352 IPC, Police Station- Rohaniya District- Varanasi

3. Case No. 114 of 2023, under sections 147, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Rohaniya District- Varanasi

4. Case No. 212 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504/34 IPC, Police Station- Rohaniya District- Varanasi

5. Case No. 475of 2016, under sections 419, 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Rohaniya District- Varanasi

6. Case No. 522 of 2021, under sections 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act, 1986, Police Station- Rohaniya District- Varanasi

7. Beet Information No. 28, dated 12.8.2023.

Apart from above, respondent-3-Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Varanasi referred to the report dated 08.09.2023 submitted by the Station House Officer of Police Station-Chitaipur, wherein it was stated that petitioner is a vicious criminal, petitioner has committed offence, under Chapters 16 and 17 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.

9. In response to the said show cause notice dated 25.09.2023, petitioner filed his objections dated 09.10.2023 to the show cause notice disputing the contents of the same. Petitioner explained his status in the criminal cases registered against him. Petitioner further stated that most of the criminal cases registered against him are false nor he has any information regarding some of the criminal cases registered against him. No complaint has bee