KESHAN PALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10193 of 2026

Keshan Pal
                                                        .....Petitioner(s)
                                 Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                 :   Mahendra Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)                 :   G.A.

Court No. - 49
                 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
                 HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mahendra Tripathi, the learned counsel for petitioner and
the learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1 to 4.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioner-Keshan Pal has approached this Court by means of present
writ petition with the following prayer:

" It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to:-

a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus staying
the effect and operation/execution of district externment order dated
16.03.2026 passed by respondent no.3 in Case No.1301/2025,
Computerized Case No.D-202502420001301 (State Versus Keshan Pal),
PR 2026 under section 3(3) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, Police
Station Mahewaghat, District Kaushambi, during the pendency of the
appeal pending before respondent no.2.

b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no.2 to dispose of the appeal as well as stay
application expeditiously/within stipulated period.

c) to issue any suitable writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble may
deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
                                                        CRLP No. 10193 of 2026
                               2


d) to award cost of this petition in favour of petitioner."

3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that
petitioner does which to press prayer no.1 as prayed for by means of
present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of present writ petition
submits that an externment order dated 16.03.2026 was passed by
respondent-3, District Magistrate, Kaushambi, District-Kaushambi against
petitioner in Case No. 1301 of 2025 (State Vs. Keshan Pal) under Section
3 (3) of U.P. Goondas Act, 1970, Police Station-Mahewaghat, District-
Kaushambi, whereby petitioner was exterminated from the territorial
limits of District-kaushambi for a period of 6 months .

5. Feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 16.03.2026, petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Prayagraj
Division, Prayagraj in terms of Section 6 of the U.P. Control of Goondas
Act, 1970. The same was registered as Appeal No. C202602000000550 of
2026 (Keshan Pal Vs. State of U.P.). Alongwith the memo of appeal,
petitioner filed an stay application seeking stay of the effect and operation
of the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed by respondent-3, the
District Magistrate, Kaushambi.

6. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the aforesaid appeal
was filed before the appellate authority, i.e. Divisional Commissioner,
Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj on 30.03.2026. On the above premise, the
learned counsel for petitioner in support of present writ petition submits
that in spite of the fact that a period of approximately 43 days has rolled
by from the date of filing the aforementioned appeal, however no order
has been passed by the appellate authority on the stay application filed by
petitioner alongwith memo of appeal preferred against the order dated
16.03.2026.

7. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the failure on the part
of appellate authority in not passing any order on the stay application
cannot be said to be justifiable in any view of the matter. Since the order
challenged in appeal has serious civil consequences inasmuch as under
the order dated 16.03.2026, the petitioner has been exterminated,
                                                        CRLP No. 10193 of 2026
                               3


therefore, the appellate authority i.e. the Divisional Commissioner,
Prayagraj Division Prayagraj should not have allowed a swinging
pendulum during the pendency of appeal. To buttress his submission, the
learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgement of Supreme
Court in Mool Chand Yadav and another Vs. Raja Buland Sugar
Company Ltd. Rampur & others 1982 (3) SCC 484 wherein the Apex
Court has observed that in case the consequences of an order impugned in
an appeal/revision are serious in nature then in such a circumstance, the
appellate court/revisional Court should not permit a swinging pendulum
during the pendency of appeal but must stay the effect and operation of
such an order.

8. Deriving sustenance from the ratio laid down by Apex Court in
aforementioned judgement, the learned counsel for petitioner thus submits
that interest of justice shall better be served in case the present writ
petition is disposed of finally with a direction to appellate authority i.e.
Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj to decide aforementioned
appeal preferred by petitioner within a time period fixed by this Court and
in the interregnum the effect and operation of the order dated 16.03.2023
passed by respondent-2, District Magistrate, Kaushambi be kept in
abeyance.

9. Per contra, the leaned A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1,2 and 3
has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. Learned A.G.A.
submits that since petitioner has already approached the appellate
authority, therefore, remedy lies to petitioner to approach the appellate
authority itself for expeditious disposal of stay application. In support of
his aforesaid submission, the learned A.G.A. has referred to the
judgement of Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabd
Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207. Reliance is
placed upon paragraphs 41 and 42 of the aforesaid report.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A.
representing State/respondents 1 to 4, upon perusal of record and
considering the rival submissions urged by the counsel for the parties as
noted herein above, we find that no useful purpose shall be served in
keeping this writ petition pending. It is an undisputed fact that against the
                                                                                            CRLP No. 10193 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    externment order dated 16.03.2026, petitioner has already preferred an
                                    appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj
                                    as provided under Section 6 of the U.P. Goondas Act 1970. Alongwith the
                                    memo of appeal, petitioner also filed an stay application seeking stay of
                                    the impugned externment order dated 16.03.2026 passed by respondent-3,
                                    the District Magistrate, Kaushambi during the pending of appeal. The life
                                    of externment order is six months. As such on date a period of almost two
                                    months have expired. We do not see any reason on the basis of which,
                                    responden-2 the Divisional Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj
                                    could have refused to exercise his jurisdiction in the matter.

                                    11. In view of above, this writ petition shall stand disposed of finally with
                                    a direction to respondent-2, Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj
                                    to decided aforementioned appeal filed by petitioner within a period of
                                    two months from the date of production/presentation of a certified copy of
                                    this order.

                                    12. Till the disposal of appeal or for a period of two months, whichever is
                                    earlier, the effect and operation of the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by
                                    respondent-3, District Magistrate, Kaushambi in Case No.1301 of 2025
                                    (State Versus Keshan Pal) (Annesure-1 to the writ petiton) shall be kept in
                                    abeyance.



                                                                (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    YK




Digitally signed by :-
YASHWANT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad