SHAHANSHAH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dtd. 11/5/2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 and order dtd. 6/3/2017 passed by the respondent no. 3 under U.P. Control of Goonda Act (herein after referred to as 'Goonda Act').

(2.) By means of the order dtd. 6/3/2017 the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Saharanpur ordered the district externment of the present petitioner for six months under Sec. 3 of the Goonda Act. Vide order dtd. 11/5/2017, the Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur confirmed the order dtd. 6/3/2017 in appeal under Sec. 6 of the Goonda Act.

(3.) The impugned orders have been assailed on the grounds firstly that the notice dtd. 3/2/2017 under Sec. 3 (1) of the Goonda Act was issued but the same was never served upon him, so he could not reply the same and the respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order dtd. 6/3/2017 exparte without granting him opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the notice was issued on the basis of only one case registered against him as Case Crime No. 222 of 2016 under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 188, 336, 337, 504, 506, 353 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Act. As the members of the locality had gathered at one place, the petitioner was not present on the site but even then his name was disclosed in the case due to political pressure and village partibandi. He has neither any criminal background nor his face value is known as Goonda in his locality and without collecting any evidence and making enquiry about his character, the notice was issued and consequently, the order was passed against him. Though, the notice was not served upon him even then he tried to submit his explanation but without giving any opportunity of being heard by passing the impugned order dtd. 6/3/2017 he has been externed from the district for six months. His appeal against the said order has also been dismissed. The beet information dtd. 20/1/2017 has been submitted with the averment that the petitioner will influence the assembly elections. This information is totally baseless and without any evidence. Hence, the impugned order is baseless and is passed without granting him an opportunity of being heard. The impugned order is totally in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.