Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13206 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 104 of 2025 Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nisha Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 3. The present petitioner has been filed with the following main prayer: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.2024, passed by Learned Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya, in Case No. 2965/2024, Computerized Case No.c202404000002965, 'Chandra Shekhar Vs State of U.P., under section 6 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, as well as order dated 14.10.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Barabanki in Case No. 214/2024, 'State Vs Chandra Shekhar', under section 3/4 U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 as well as notice dated 27.01.2024 passed by the Opposite Party No.3 in Case No. 480/2024, Computerized Case No. D20240412000214, 'State Vs Chandra Shekhar', under section 3 U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, as contained in Annexure No. 1, 2 & 3 to this writ petition." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of presumption, order dated 27.11.2024 was passed by District Magistrate, Ayodhya under the provisions of UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970 and the said order was challenged by filing an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Ayodhya and the appeal was admitted but the stay application was rejected with the observation that balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that it is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that once an appeal is admitted then the application for stay is to be decided on merit, therefore, kind indulgence of the court is necessary. 5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of petitioner but he does not dispute this fact that the stay application was rejected on the ground that balance of convenience was not in favour of the petitioner. He has also conceded this fact that appeal has already been admitted. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of petition, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the appeal was admitted by Divisional Commissioner/Appellate Authority but the stay application was rejected with the observation that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the petitioner. As it is well settled that once an appeal is admitted then the application for stay is to be decided on merit, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the Appellate Authority to decide the application on merit. In such circumstances, the impugned order has been wrongly passed and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 27.11.2024 is hereby set aside as well as the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Barabanki is stayed till the conclusion of appeal. 8. The Appellate Authority is also directed to conclude the aforesaid appeal, expeditiously. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 V. Sinha Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench