# Haushila Dubey v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 281
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-14
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 21817 of 2019
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed, Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/haushila-dubey-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-47171
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

8 All. Haushila Dubey Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
281

20.

Accordingly,
petition
is
dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A281
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 21817 of 2019

Haushila Dubey ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Brahm Prakash Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Externment
order
passed
without
considering Petitioner's representationmany years have lapsed since expiry of
the order-Appeal also dismissed-no cause
of action survives.

W.P. disposed.(E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned AGA for the State and
perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed
with the following prayers;

"i) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari to quash the order
dated 25.03.2019 passed by Commissioner,
Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Case
No.500
of
2015
(Computer
Case
No.C2015140000500 (Haushila Dubey Vs.
State of U.P.) under Section 3(1) U.P.
Control of Goondas Act, 1970, through
Additional District Magistrate ( Civil
Supply), Varanasi passed by order dated
11.03.2015 in Suit No.124 of 2014 ( State
of U.P. Vs. Haushila Dubey) under Section
3(1) U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970,
Police Station Cholapur District Varanasi.

ii) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondent no.2 & 3 to stay the effect
and operation of the order dated 25.03.2019
passed
by
Commissioner,
Varanasi
Division, Varanasi in Case No.500 of 2015
(Computer
Case
No.C2015140000500
(Haushila Dubey Vs. State of U.P.) under
Section 3(1) U.P. Control of Goondas Act,
1970,
through
Additional
District
Magistrate ( Civil Supply), Varanasi passed
by order dated 11.03.2015 in Suit No.124
of 2014 ( State of U.P. Vs. Haushila
Dubey) under Section 3(1) U.P. Control of
Goondas Act, 1970.

iii) issue any other and further
writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper, in the
circumstances of the case.

iv) Award the costs to the
petitioners."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the notice under Section 3(1)
U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has
been issued to the petitioner for submitting
representation/reply,
thereafter,
the
petitioner
submitted
a
detailed
representation/reply but the respondent
No.3 without considering the submissions
made
by
the
petitioner
passed
the
externment order dated 11.03.2015 and
petitioner was directed to remain outside
the district for a period of one month being
aggrieved against the said order, the
petitioner preferred an appeal, under
Section
6
of
the
Act
before
the
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Commissioner,
respondent
no.2.
The
learned
Commissioner
also
without
considering the grounds taken by the
petitioner in the appeal and without giving
opportunity of hearing dismissed the appeal
vide order dated 25.03.2019, thereafter, the
petitioner by means of the present writ
petition challenged both the orders before
this Court for quashing the same on the
ground that both the orders are bad in the
eye of law.

4. Per contra learned AGA has
submitted that the present writ petition has
now become infructuous due to reason that
at present no cause of action survives in the
present writ petition as the externment
order passed against the petitioner was only
for a period of one month and the appeal
against the said order has also been
dismissed, so in the present writ petition
nothing remain to be decided nor there is
any adverse order against the petitioner for
which he is aggrieved.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
in rejoinder argued that there is an
apprehension in the mind of the petitioner
that the respondent authorities may take
disadvantage of the impugned orders in
future against the petitioner.

6. I have considered the rival
submissions made by the parties and
perused the record.

7. From the perusal of the externment
order, it is not disputed that the same is
already expired and the appeal filed against
the said externment order before the
Commissioner, respondent no.2, under
section 6 of the Act is also dismissed and
after lapse of so many years, there is no
externment order against the petitioner nor
any fresh order exists in the present case,
which causes any harm to the petitioner. In
the present writ petition nothing remains to
be decide on merit, as no cause of action
survives in the present writ petition at
present nor there is any adverse order
against the petitioner, for which he is
prejudiced.

8. The apprehension of the petitioner
that the authorities may take disadvantage
of the impugned orders in future against
him is also not justified unless he is not
involved in any other criminal case. If he is
aggrieved by any other order passed by the
respondents
he
may
approach
the
competent court of law for redressal of his
grievances.

9. With the above observations, the
present writ petition is disposed of.

10. No order as to cost.
----------
(2021)08ILR A282
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Habeas Corpus No. 412 of 2021
connected with
Habeas Corpus No. 414 of 2021
with
Habeas Corpus No. 416 of 2021

Parvez ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Narendra Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents: