PAVAN @ PAVAN SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(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, vide his 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 SCCOnLineAll 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 :