1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:9015 Reserved on: 27.11.2024 Delivered on: 20.01.2025 Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20814 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ramautar Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. representing Respondents 1 to 5. 2. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner-Ramautar has approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer;- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously graciously be pleased to: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to respondent no. 2 to decide the interim relief application pending before him in Appeal No. 1360/2024 Computerized Case No. C202412000001360 (Ramautar Vs. State of U.P.) U/s 6 U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 and stay the effect of operation of order dated 05.08.2024 passed by respondent no. 3 during pendency of Appeal. (ii) Or pass any other and further order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the fact and circumstance of the case." 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that feeling aggrieved by the 2 externment order dated 05.08.2024 passed by respondent-3 Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Shahjahanpur, petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent-2 Commissioner Bareilly Division, Bareilly in terms of Section 6 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. Along with the memo of appeal, petitioner also filed a stay application dated 16.08.2024 seeking stay of the order dated 05.08.2024 during the pendency of aforementioned appeal. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than 4 months has rolled by from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 16.08.2024, no order has been passed by the Appellate Authority on the stay application appended along with memo of appeal nor the appeal itself has been finally decided by the Appellate Authority. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Mool Chand Yadav and Another Vs. Raja Buland Sugar Company Ltd. Rampur and Others (1982) 3 SCC 484, he submits that where order impugned in appeal or revision, as the case may be, has serious civil consequences, then in such a circumstance, the Appellate/Revisional Authority should stay the effectg and operation of an order and not permit a swinging pendulum during the pendency of appeal or revision. Admittedly, the life of order impugned in appeal is 6 months and in case, no interim order is passed by the Appellate Authority, the purpose of filing the appeal itself shall stand frustrated. He, therefore, submits that in view of the aforesaid exceptional circumstance of the present case, respondent-2 Commissioner Bareilly Division, Bareilly is liable to be directed by this Court to decide the stay application filed by petitioner along with memo of appeal referred to above within a time bound period and till the disposal of the stay application, the order impugned in appeal be directed to remain in abeyance. 5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State respondents 1 to 5 has opposed the present writ petition. Learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Five Judges Bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207, no relief as prayed 3 for can be granted by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner with reference to the record at this stage. 6. Having heard, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. representing respondents 1 to 5 and upon perusal of record, this Court find that admittedly an order of externment was passed against petitioner on 05.08.2024. The life of externment order is 6 months. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2024, petitioner has filed an appeal in terms of Section 6 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 before the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent-2 Commissioner Bareilly Division, Bareilly. Along with memo of appeal, the petitioner also appended a stay application seeking stay of the order dated 05.08.2024 during the pendency of appeal. However, even though a period of more than 4 months has rolled by, the Appellate Authority has not passed any order on the stay application filed by the petitioner. In view of above and also the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav and Another (Supra), the Appellate Authority is, therefore, liable to be directed by this Court to decide the appeal filed by petitioner within a time bound period and further consider the stay application filed by petitioner along with memo of appeal within a time bound period. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, this Court finds that in view of above and the order proposed to be passed, no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this writ petition pending. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to Appellate Authority i.e. respondent-2 Commissioner Bareilly Division, Bareilly to decide the aforementioned appeal filed by petitioner in terms of Section 6 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. However, the effect and operation of the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by 4 respondent-3 Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Shahjahanpur, which has been challenged in appeal, shall remain stayed till the disposal of appeal. Order Date :- 20.01.2025 Vinay Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad