1. Heard Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondents through video conferencing in view of COVID-19 pandemic.
2. By means of this petitioner the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 12.03.2021, passed by the Commissioner, Devipatan Division, Gonda, passed in Appeal No. 146 of 2021 (Computer Case No. C202108000000146) - Sudhir Kumar @ Kukku Vs. State of U.P., under Section 6 of U.P. Control of Goonda Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1970"), whereby the appeal of petitioner has been rejected. Further prayer has been made to quash the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Balrampur dated 24.12.2020, in Case No. 53/2018, u/s 3/4 of U.P. Control of Goonda Act, Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District - Balrampur.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of externment under Section 3(3) of the Act, 1970 has been passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Balrampur on 24.12.2020, which is sought to be assailed in appeal before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda. The limitation of appeal was up to 01.01.2021. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of passing of order dated 24.12.2020, and he came to know about the order only on 02.02.2021 and filed the appeal on 05.02.2021, before the Commissioner alongwith delay condonation application. It has been stated on behalf of petitioner that he did not have any prior knowledge about the order dated 24.12.2020 and about which he came to know only on 02.02.2021 and without any further delay the appeal was filed before the Commissioner on 05.02.2021, explaining the delay caused in filing the appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Commissioner, by means of impugned order, without adequately considering the reasons stated by the petitioner in his application for condonation of delay, rejected his application moved under the limitation Act.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand has opposed the petition by supporting the impugned order passed by the Commissioner by stating that since appeal was time barred therefore the same has been rejected on the ground of delay.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From perusal of record as well as impugned order it reveals that the appeal was filed beyond limitation alongwith application for condonation of delay in which ground of delay was explained as due to COVID-19 pandemic, but the Commissioner not being satisfied with the ground raised in the application for delay, rejected the application. A perusal of application of condonation of delay would clearly indicate that the petitioner came to know about the order dated 24.12.2020, passed by the Additional District Magistrate only on 02.02.2021. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Commissioner in his order, but on some other ground which was not taken by the petitioner in his appeal, has been considered and the appeal has been rejected.
8. The applicant in the applicant of condonation of delay had only taken a plea regarding delay in coming to know of the order passed by Additional District Magistrate, and had not raised any plea regarding Covid which disabled him from filing the appeal in time.
9. The order passed by the Commissioner, Devipatan Division, Gonda clearly indicates non application of mind on the part of the Commissioner while rejecting the application for condonation of delay has only considered the plea regarding Covid Pandemic which plea was in fact not raised by the petitioner.
10. Looking into the aforesaid facts and also the fact that delay in filing the appeal was of one and half month delayed, and in case delay was condoned and appeal might have been heard and decided on merits, but the Commissioner chose to reject the application on the ground of delay and this curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner. The Commissioner should have taken a liberal view of the matter and looking into the facts as narrated above, delay if any in filing the appeal deserved to have been condoned. Even otherwise, on the facts of the case as narrated in the application for condonation of delay, the reason has been adequately explained by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 12.03.2021, passed by the Commissioner, is patently illegal and arbitrary having been passed without application of mind and the same deserves to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, order dated 12.03.2021, passed by the Commissioner, Devipatan Division, Gonda, passed in Appeal No. 146 of 2021 (Computer Case No. C202108000000146) - Sudhir Kumar @ Kukku Vs. State of U.P., under Section 6 of U.P. Control of Goonda Act, 1970, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner, Devipatan Division, Gonda with direction that in case, appropriate application alongwith a copy of this order is presented before the Commissioner, Devipatan Division, Gonda within ten day's from today, the appeal of the petitioner shall be heard and decided expeditiously, say within a period of one month thereafter, in accordance with law.
11. The petition is allowed.
12. The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by him alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
13. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 6.5.2021 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.)