1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No.1058 of 2024 Kanta Prasad Gangwar .…..Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others …..Respondents Presence:- Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned DAG along with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned B.H. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of the order/letter dated 06.09.2024 passed by ADM (Administration/Nazool), District US Nagar whereby the SSP, US Nagar was requested to do compliance of order dated 28.08.2024 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital by which order dated 10.03.2023 passed by ADM (Administration) District US Nagar was confirmed. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that a notice u/s 3 of the UP control of Goondas Act, 1970 was issued to him on 05.04.2019 passed by respondent- District Magistrate, U.S. Nagar wherein he was asked to show cause that since he is a habitual criminal, why an order of externment should not be passed against him? In furtherance of the said notice the petitioner appeared before the learned said authority and filed a detailed reply but the learned court of ADM (Administrator) vide order dated 10.03.2023 externed the petitioner from constituency of Rudrapur for a period of 3 months. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that the petitioner has already been externed, the ADM, US Nagar has, vide impugned 2 order dated 06/09/2024, again asked the SSP, US Nagar to extern him in compliance of order dated 28.08.2024 passed by Commissioner, Kumaon who vide aforesaid order has affirmed the order of ADM, US Nagar dated 10.03.2023 which as a matter of fact happens to be the same order by which he has already been externed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that as no stay was granted by the Commissioner’s court against the order dated 10.03.2023 he has already been externed and therefore, he cannot be externed again on the order being affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner as it will amount to undergoing punishment twice in compliance of the same order. 5. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner is seeking advantage of the fact that the appropriate authorities in spite of the fact that there was no stay in his favor against the order dated 10.03.2023 did not extern him for the sake of comity as the appeal was sub-judice and only when the order was affirmed by the Commissioner’s court the authorities took steps for the very first time to extern him. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, this Court is of the opinion that as the order passed by ADM, US Nagar dated 10.03.2023 was challenged by the petitioner in the court of Kumaon Commissioner, the authorities to maintain judicial comity did not execute the order of ADM and only when the said order was affirmed by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 28.08.2024 the authorities for the first time complied with the initial order. Therefore, this petition is dismissed for being utterly misconceived. Moreover, this court deprecates 3 this practice and takes strong objection on the filing of petitions of this kind as it is a logical conclusion that the petitioner was fully aware of the whole set of facts and in spite of that filed this writ petition and wasted precious time of this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.08.2025 R.Dang