In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court set aside the externment orders passed against Wahid @ Abdul Wahid under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, citing lack of evidence and arbitrary decision-making by the authorities.
Background of the Case:
Wahid, the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12979 of 2024, had approached the Allahabad High Court challenging two orders: an externment order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Additional Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, and the subsequent rejection of his appeal by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, on 21.06.2024. Both orders were made under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, seeking to expel Wahid from the district of Ghaziabad for six months.
Wahid’s externment was based on three criminal cases lodged between 2016 and 2023, alongside a police report labeling him a “dreaded criminal.” The Additional Police Commissioner held that his presence in Ghaziabad threatened public order, while the Commissioner, Meerut, upheld the decision on appeal.
Legal Issues Involved:
1. Misapplication of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970: The court examined whether Wahid could be declared a “goonda” under Section 2(b) of the Act, which requires habitual criminal behavior and threats to public order.
2. Violation of Individual Liberty: Wahid argued that the externment violated his fundamental rights, particularly his freedom of movement under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
3. Arbitrary Action by Authorities: Wahid contended that the externment order was arbitrary, as the crimes cited were either resolved or of a personal nature, and there had been a seven-year gap during which no crime was committed.
Arguments Presented:
Counsel for the Petitioner, Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, argued that the externment was based on past personal disputes and not on any threat to public order. He emphasized that Wahid had not been involved in any criminal activity for seven years before 2023, and that he had been granted bail in all the cases filed against him. The petitioner also contended that the authorities had failed to demonstrate how Wahid’s actions met the criteria for declaring him a “goonda” under the Act.
On the other hand, the State Counsel argued that Wahid had earned a reputation of being dangerous to the community, which justified his externment from Ghaziabad.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava, presiding over the matter, quashed the externment order, citing multiple deficiencies in the authorities’ approach.
1. Failure to Prove Habitual Offending: The court highlighted that, under the law, a person could only be categorized as a “goonda” if they habitually commit offenses. It noted the absence of any criminal activity on Wahid’s part for a span of seven years, questioning how the authorities could deem him a threat based on one case in 2023.
– “The petitioner never indulged in any criminal activity for a period of about seven years … how the Additional Police Commissioner was satisfied that the petitioner falls within the category of ‘goonda’ … appears to be a hyper technical approach,” observed the court.
2. Violation of Personal Liberty: The court reaffirmed that any action infringing on a citizen’s fundamental rights must be backed by clear evidence. It stated that the authorities had acted in a routine and mechanical manner without satisfying themselves about the petitioner’s threat to society.
– “The right to freedom guaranteed under Article 19(d) of the Constitution of India is a valuable right of all the citizens of India and cannot be taken away only on the basis of vague and insufficient allegations,” the court stated.
3. Lack of Judicial Application: Criticizing the authorities for their failure to justify their decision, the court noted that the externment order was based solely on police reports without any subjective satisfaction by the Additional Police Commissioner.
– “Nowhere in the impugned order … it appears that the Additional Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, Ghaziabad, has made any subjective satisfaction before passing the said order,” the court remarked.
4. Case Law Reference: The court referred to the precedent set in Shankar Ji Shukla vs. Ayukt, Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad (2005) and Irfan Khan vs. State of U.P. (2001), where it had been held that externment orders must be based on objective evidence rather than vague police reports.
Conclusion:
The Allahabad High Court concluded that both the orders of the Additional Police Commissioner and the Commissioner of Meerut Division were arbitrary and failed to meet the legal criteria for externment. The externment order was quashed, and Wahid’s petition was allowed.
Key Case Details:
– Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12979 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava
– Petitioner: Wahid @ Abdul Wahid
– Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh and others
– Counsel for Petitioner: Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan
