ABDUL GAFFAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE District Magistrate, Varanasi, by virtue of the power conferred on him under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act (U. P. Act No. VIII of 1971) (hereinafler referred to as the Act) passed orders for the externment of the petitioners from the district for a period of six months. After the expiry of the period the District Magistrate issued notices to the petitioners under Section 5 of the Act to show cause why the period of externment order be not further extended by six months. Petitioners Bhushan Pandey and Shiv Prasad submitted their representations and challenged the validity, competence and propriety of the proposed order extending the period of externment. The District Magistrate rejected the representations and passed orders extending the period of externment for a further period of six months. Appeals by the aforesaid petitioners were dismissed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. The petitioners have challenged the notices under Section 5 of the Act and the orders of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner. Abdul Gaffar and Bechan Singh Yadav, against whom also notices under Section 5 of the Act have been issued for similarly extending the period of externment, have challenged the validity of the notices directly in this Court.

(2.) IT is admitted that in all the aforesaid cases notices under Section 5 of the Act have been issued after the expiry of the period fixed in the orders under Section 3 of the Act. The common question involved in all the above noted petitions is whether the period of externment can be legally extended after the expiry of the period of externment fixed in the order under Section 3 of the Act.

(3.) SUB-SECTION (b) of Section 2 defines "goonda" and Section 3 empowers the District Magistrate to pass an order of externment of such a person for a period not exceeding six months if the conditions specified in that section are satisfied. Section 5 of the Act provides: The District Magistrate may, after giving, except where for reasons to be recorded in writing he is satisfied that it is impracticable so to do, to the person concerned an opportunity of making a representation in that behalf, extend from time to time in interest of the general public the period specified in the order made under Section 3, but the period so extended shall in no case exceed two years in the aggregate. The contention of the petitioners was that the power to extend the period specified in the order made under Section 3 could be exercised so long as that order remained in force but once that order had exhausted itself, the period of externment could not be extended. On behalf of the State it was urged that as the statute authorised the District Magistrate to extend the period from time to time, it contemplated that the order extending the period of externment could be passed either during the period of the original order or after its expiry.