In a strongly worded judgment, the Allahabad High Court quashed an externment order passed against a Ghaziabad resident, Waseem, under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, emphasizing that public orders must be grounded in clear reasoning and cannot be supplemented by explanations later. Justice Rajeev Misra delivered the judgment on January 20, 2025, criticizing the “abrupt conclusions” drawn by the authorities.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Waseem, had been served an externment order dated August 6, 2024, by the Additional Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate, Ghaziabad, which was upheld by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, on September 27, 2024. The order barred him from the territorial limits of Ghaziabad for six months, citing his alleged involvement in criminal cases registered in 2019 and 2021.
Represented by advocates Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan and Zeeshan Khan, Waseem challenged the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that it lacked proper reasoning and failed to meet the statutory requirements under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act.
Legal Issues
1. Validity of Public Orders: The court examined whether the authorities provided adequate reasons for branding Waseem as a “Goonda” under Section 2(b) of the Act.
2. Procedural Fairness: The court questioned if the externment order complied with the statutory mandate, particularly regarding the issuance of a valid show cause notice.
3. Evidence of Habitual Offending: The judgment probed whether Waseem’s past offenses, registered years earlier, justified his classification as a threat to public safety.
Court’s Observations
Quoting the Supreme Court in M.P. Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, Justice Misra underscored the principle that the validity of a public order must be judged solely by the reasons mentioned in it: “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority, cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given… Public orders are not like old wine; they don’t improve with age.”
The court noted that the authorities failed to provide substantial reasoning in the externment order. The Additional Commissioner of Police merely narrated Waseem’s criminal history and abruptly concluded that his presence in Ghaziabad was “not conducive for society.” The appellate authority, in turn, affirmed this view without independently examining whether Waseem met the legal definition of a “Goonda” under the Act.
The court also highlighted the procedural lapses in issuing the show cause notice, observing that it did not contain the “general nature of material allegations” as mandated by law. The absence of recent offenses (post-2021) further undermined the claim that Waseem was a habitual offender.
Key Legal Standard
Under Section 2(b) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, a person can be classified as a “Goonda” if they habitually commit offenses or are generally reputed to pose a danger to the community. The court emphasized that occasional offenses, even if grave, do not automatically qualify someone as a “habitual offender.”
Decision
The High Court found the externment order to be procedurally flawed and substantively unjustified, declaring it unsustainable in law. Quashing both the initial order and the appellate confirmation, the court stated that the authorities failed to exercise their jurisdiction diligently.
“Without cogent reasons or adherence to the legal framework, such orders cannot stand,” the court remarked.
Case Details
– Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 20586 of 2024
– Petitioner: Waseem
– Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh and others
– Bench: Justice Rajeev Misra
– Counsel for Petitioner: Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, Zeeshan Khan
– Counsel for Respondents: Additional Government Advocate
