Allahabad High Court
PANKAJ YADAVversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The High Court declined to quash the Commissioner’s order and directed the Commissioner to decide the pending appeal within two months.
Summary
Petitioner Pankaj Yadav was declared a "goonda" and externed for six months under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, based on ten criminal cases. He appealed the externment order to the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, and sought a stay of the Commissioner’s order rejecting his stay application. The petition under Article 226 sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 01.07.2026. The High Court held that, since the appeal was still pending, it was not appropriate to interfere with the Commissioner’s order. Instead, the Court directed the Commissioner to decide the pending appeal within two months of receiving the certified copy of the order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with that direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash the Commissioner’s order rejecting the stay application pending an appeal under Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970.
- Whether a stay of the externment order should be granted pending the appeal.
- Whether the High Court may direct the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal expeditiously.
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 — s. 3(1), 6
Subjects
- goonda
- externment
- stay order
- certiorari
- Article 226
- appellate jurisdiction
- Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21942 of 2026
Pankaj Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhaskar Bhadra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed for the following relief:-
" I. Issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned
order dated 01.07.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly in
Case No.1074 of 2026(Computerized Case No.C202612000001074) (Pankaj Yadav
vs. State of UP) under Section 6 of UP Control of Goondas Act,1970, by which the
stay application filed by the petitioner has been rejected."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of ten
cases, proceedings under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas
Act, 1970 were initiated against the petitioner and by order dated
25.05.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Bareilly, the petitioner has
been externed for six months from the limits of District Bareilly, which
has been challenged by the petitioner by filing Appeal No.1074 of
2026(Computerized Case No. C202612000001074) (Pankaj Yadav vs.
State of U.P.), under Section 6 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970
before Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, in which a stay
application has also been moved which was rejected vide order dated
01.07.2026. The appeal, however, has not yet been decided by the
appellate authority. The petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to
quash the impugned order dated 01.07.2026.
3. Learned A.G.A. submits that as per instructions received by him, at
present ten cases are registered against the petitioner, which shows that he
CRLP No. 21942 of 2026
2
is a habitual offender.
4. It is evident that on the basis of ten criminal cases, the petitioner has
been declared a "Goonda" by the District Magistrate, Bareilly, by the
impugned order dated 25.05.2026. The petitioner has challenged this
order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division,
Bareilly, which is still pending for adjudication. However, the stay
application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned
order dated 01.07.2026.
5. Since the petitioner's appeal is still pending, it is not appropriate for this
Court to express any opinion regarding the legality of the impugned order.
6. In view of the above, it is appropriate to direct the appellate authority to
decide the petitioner's appeal expeditiously.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, to decide Appeal No. 1074 of
2026(Computerized Case No. C202612000001074), Pankaj Yadav vs.
State of U.P., under Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas
Act, 1970, within a period of two months from the date of production of
the certified copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
September 11, 2026
Mayank
Digitally signed by :-
MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…