Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19812 of 2019 Petitioner :- Aman Kumar @ Munna Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri. Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed claiming following relief:-
(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 8.4.2019 passed by learned respondent no. 2 in Appeal No. 00552/2019 [Computer Case No. C201902000000522] (Aman Kumar @ Munna Pandey Vs. State) [Annexure-3 to writ petition];
(ii) any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(iii) award cost of writ petition to the petitioner throughout.
The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of five cases against the petitioner the proceeding was initiated by Additional District Magistrate in Goonda Act and without serving any notice on him, externment order was passed by order dated 29.03.2019. Against that order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and moved stay application. Appeal is still pending and his stay application has been rejected by order dated 08.04.2019.
From the perusal of order of the Additional District Magistrarte, it appears that the petitioner was personally served notice but he did not appear before the Additional District Magistrate, and, therefore the said order was passed on the basis of criminal cases pending against the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention that externment orders survive only for six months. Externment order has been passed on 29.03.2019 and it will certainly end on 29.09.2019. It is also pertinent to mention that the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner on 08.04.2019 and after expiry of more than three and a half months, this petition has been filed knowing fully well that impugned order of externment will end after six months. This delay appears to be against the principles of bonafide. A person claiming relief in writ under Article 226/227 must be vigilant and must come before this Court in a reasonable expeditious manner. The expiry of almost four months from the date of externment order and considering the fact as written in the externment order that the order came into effect on that very date. It appears useless at this stage to interfere with the matter. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 PS