# Riyazuddin @ Puttan v. Commissioner Devi Patan Gonda & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 68
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-19
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 7693 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/riyazuddin-puttan-v-commissioner-devi-patan-gonda-anr-46949
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Goonda Act,
1970 - Section 2 - Gonda - Section 3(1) -
Externment, etc. of Gondas , Section 6 -
Appeal - not only an administrative but
also a judicial order must be supported by
reasons, recorded in it - cardinal principle
which
must
be
observed
by
every
authority while passing an order, from
which civil/criminal consequences flow, to
assign reasons for reaching at such
conclusion - This rule to be observed by
every authority while sitting into capacity
of
judicial,
quasi-judicial
as
well
in
administrative capacity whatsoever may
be.(Para - 8,12)

Dispute is between two individually litigating
parties only with regard to the dispute as to
landed property - considering the matter under
Goondas Act - no discussion on the applicability
of the Act - impugned order passed by the
District Magistrate is lacking and non-speaking
in this regard. (Para -11)

HELD: - The Commissioner directed to decide
the Appeal filed under Section 6 of Uttar
Pradesh
Goonda
Act,
1970
on
merit
expeditiously with all practicable promptness
within a period of one month by a reasoned and
speaking order or if by reason of any
administrative business it is not possible to
decide the same within aforesaid period of one
month, to decide on such other date not beyond
three months from the date, the certified copy
of the order is placed before him. (Para - 15)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examined himself and produced the papers.
In these circumstances, there was no
controversy raised before the Judge, Small
Causes Court and the Judge, Small Causes
Court had only to consider the case of the
plaintiff and evidence produced by him. It
was not a case where the judgment itself
could have been treated as a nullity if the
judgment was not written in accordance
with the provisions of Order XX, Rule 4
C.P.C.

(10) The revision has also been
decided after considering the grounds
raised by the petitioner. Therefore merely
because a case on Section 115 CPC has
been considered cannot be a ground to
challenge the order. As such this Court
does not find any illegality or error in the
impugned orders dated 11.12.2019 and
29.02.2016.

(11) In view of above, the writ
petition is misconceived and lacks merit. It
is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2021)03ILR A68
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Misc. Single No. 7693 of 2021

Riyazuddin @ Puttan ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Devi Patan Gonda & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Goonda Act,
1970 - Section 2 - Gonda - Section 3(1) -
Externment, etc. of Gondas , Section 6 -
Appeal - not only an administrative but
also a judicial order must be supported by
reasons, recorded in it - cardinal principle
which
must
be
observed
by
every
authority while passing an order, from
which civil/criminal consequences flow, to
assign reasons for reaching at such
conclusion - This rule to be observed by
every authority while sitting into capacity
of
judicial,
quasi-judicial
as
well
in
administrative capacity whatsoever may
be.(Para - 8,12)

Dispute is between two individually litigating
parties only with regard to the dispute as to
landed property - considering the matter under
Goondas Act - no discussion on the applicability
of the Act - impugned order passed by the
District Magistrate is lacking and non-speaking
in this regard. (Para -11)

HELD: - The Commissioner directed to decide
the Appeal filed under Section 6 of Uttar
Pradesh
Goonda
Act,
1970
on
merit
expeditiously with all practicable promptness
within a period of one month by a reasoned and
speaking order or if by reason of any
administrative business it is not possible to
decide the same within aforesaid period of one
month, to decide on such other date not beyond
three months from the date, the certified copy
of the order is placed before him. (Para - 15)

Writ petition disposed of. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

1. St. of Orissa Vs Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5
SCC 568

2. Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs
Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & ors.,
(2010) 3 SCC 732

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.)

1. The case is called out.
3 All. Riyazuddin @ Puttan Vs. Commissioner Devi Patan Gonda & Anr.
69

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate and learned
A.G.A. for the State Sri S.P. Tiwari,
Advocate are present in the Court.

3. The present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
filed
to
stay
the
operation
and
implementation of orders dated 10.03.2021
passed by respondent no.1, Commissioner,
Devipatan Division, Gonda in Appeal
No.00223/2021
(Computer
No.
C202108000000223), filed under Section 6
of Uttar Pradesh Goonda Act, 1970 so far it
relates to denial in granting interim relief as
well as order dated 23.02.2021 passed by
respondent no.2, the District Magistrate,
Bahraich
in
Case
No.01004/2018
(Computer Case No. D201808150001004),
under Section 3(1) of U.P. Goonda Act,
1970, during pendency of present writ
petition.

4. On perusal of the impugned order
passed
by
the
respondent
no.1,
Commissioner, Devipatan Division, Gonda,
admitted the appeal against the order dated
23.02.2021, passed by respondent no.2, the
District Magistrate, Bahraich under Section
3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970
but denying the prayer to stay the operation
of the order of the District Magistrate,
Bahraich on the ground that there are
criminal
cases registered against the
appellants.

5. Apparently, the order of respondent
no.1, as appellate authority is not a
speaking order.

6. Prima facie the impugned order
passed
by
the
respondent
no.1
is
unreasoned and non-speaking, as such,
indicates failure on the part of aforesaid
respondent no.1 to discharge his duty.

7. Why the reason is said to be heart
of every conclusion, has been discussed in
the case of State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram
Luhar reported in (2004) 5 SCC 568 in
para 8, which is quoted as under:-

"Even in respect of administrative
orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen
v.Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 1 All
ER 1148 : (1971) 2 QB 175 : (1971) 2 WLR
742 (CA)] observed: "The giving of reasons
is one of the fundamentals of good
administration." In Alexander Machinery
(Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree[1974 ICR 120
(NIRC)] it was observed: "Failure to give
reasons amounts to denial of justice."
"Reasons are live links between the mind of
the decision-taker to the controversy in
question and the decision or conclusion
arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity
by objectivity. The emphasis on recording
reasons is that if the decision reveals the
"inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by
its silence, render it virtually impossible for
the courts to perform their appellate
function or exercise the power of judicial
review in adjudging the validity of the
decision.
Right
to
reason
is
an
indispensable part of a sound judicial
system; reasons at least sufficient to
indicate an application of mind to the
matter before court. Another rationale is
that the affected party can know why the
decision has gone against him. One of the
salutary requirements of natural justice is
spelling out reasons for the order made; in
other
words,
a
speaking-out.
The
"inscrutable
face
of
the
sphinx"
is
ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or
quasi-judicial performance."

8. The necessity of reasons for
reaching at a conclusion further finds place
in another decision of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the case of Secretary and Curator,
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah
Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others
reported in (2010) 3 SCC 732, in para 40,
which is quoted hereunder:-

"It is a settled legal proposition
that not only an administrative but also a
judicial order must be supported by reasons,
recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue,
the court is bound to give reasons for its
conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on
the part of the court to record reasons while
disposing of the case. The hallmark of an
order and exercise of judicial power by a
judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by
itself and giving of reasons has always been
insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of
sound administration of justice-delivery
system, to make known that there had been
proper and due application of mind to the
issue before the court and also as an essential
requisite of the principles of natural justice.
"The giving of reasons for a decision is an
essential attribute of judicial and judicious
disposal of a matter before courts, and which
is the only indication to know about the
manner and quality of exercise undertaken,
as also the fact that the court concerned had
really applied its mind." (Vide State of Orissa
v.Dhaniram Luhar [(2004) 5 SCC 568 :
(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 49 : AIR 2004 SC 1794]
and State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal [(2004) 5
SCC 573 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 53] )"

9. In the present context, it would be
pertinent to have a look upon the order of
District Magistrate, Bahraich impugned in
the appeal pending before the respondent
no.1, which refers three criminal cases
pending against the accused-appellant,
which are as follows:-

(i)
Case
Crime
No.27/2018,
under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C.

(ii) Case Crime No.2423/2017,
under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C.

(iii)Beat
information
report
No.29 at 20:16 dated 23.07.2018.

10. With regard to above criminal
cases, the order of District Magistrate,
Bahraich itself mentioned the explanation
submitted by the accused-appellant that
there was a dispute between the parties to
the incident, as to a landed property,
wherein he has been bailed out by order of
the competent court, as the aforesaid cases
were instituted against him falsely, as a
matter of fact, he use to live in Delhi in
connection with his employment. This
would also be pertinent to keep into mind
the definition of "Goonda" given under
Section 2 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act,
1970, which runs as under:-

"(b) 'Goonda' means a person
who-

(i) either by himself or as a
member or leader of a gang, habitually
commits or attempts to commit, or abets
the commission of an offence punishable
under Section 153 or Section 153-B or
Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or
Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII
or Chapter XXII of the said Code; or

(ii) has been convicted for an
offence punishable under the Suppression
of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls
Act, 1956; or

(iii) has been convicted not less
than thrice for an offence punishable
under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 or the
Public Gambling Act, 1867 or Section 25,
Section 27 or Section 29 of the Arms Act,
1959; or

(iv) is generally reputed to be a
person who is desperate and dangerous to
the community; or
3 All. Sukh Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
71

(v) has been habitually passing
indecent remarks or teasing women or
girls; or

(vi) is a tout;"

11. On perusal of the order of District
Magistrate, Bahraich, it appears that there
is no mention of offence affecting the
general public at large, however, the
dispute
is
between
two
individually
litigating parties only with regard to the
dispute as to landed property, as such,
while
considering
the
matter
under
Goondas Act, there should be a discussion
on the applicability of the Act also, but the
impugned order passed by the District
Magistrate, Bahraich is lacking and nonspeaking in this regard, as discussed
hereinabove.

12. This is cardinal principle which
must be observed by every authority while
passing an order, from which civil/criminal
consequences flow, to assign reasons for
reaching at such conclusion. This rule to be
observed by every authority while sitting into
capacity of judicial, quasi judicial as well in
administrative capacity whatsoever may be.

13. Learned A.G.A. at this stage
submitted that he would have no objection, if
any, such direction is issued to decide the
interim stay on application or the appeal
pending before the Commissioner, Devipatan
Division, Gonda (respondent no.1) by way of
speaking and well reasoned order within a
period specified by the Court.

14. The necessity of service of notice
upon the opposite parties are dispensed with
as learned A.G.A. is present on behalf of all
the opposite parties.

15. The Commissioner, Devipatan
Division, Gonda is directed to decide the
Appeal
No.00223/2021
(Computer
No.
C202108000000223), filed under Section 6
of Uttar Pradesh Goonda Act, 1970 on merit
expeditiously with all practicable promptness
within a period of one month by a reasoned
and speaking order as discussed hereinabove
or if by reason of any administrative business
it is not possible to decide the same within
aforesaid period of one month, to decide on
such other date not beyond three months
from the date, the certified copy of the order
is placed before him.

16. Meanwhile, the enforcement, effect
and operation of the order of District
Magistrate, Bahraich dated 23.02.2021 in
Case No. 01004/2018 (Computer Case No.
D201808150001004), under Section 3(1) of
U.P. Goonda Act, 1970 shall remain in
abeyance.

17. Deputy Registrar (Criminal) is to
communicate the order of the Court promptly
to the Commissioner, Devipatan Division,
Gonda.

18. With the aforesaid directions, the
present petition is disposed of.
----------
(2021)03ILR A71
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Misc. Bench No. 9727 of 2020

Sukh Lal Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ajai Krishna Yadav, Nikhil Kumar