LALANI PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be briefly stated as under:

(2.) 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 08.9.2010 which has given rise to the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.