Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4354 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vijay Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Pratap Singh,Anurag Shukla,Pankaj Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of externment was passed against the petitioner on 28.09.2024, which was not violated by the petitioner ever and there was no report of violation of order by the petitioner. However, prior to the completion of period of externment, a show cause notice dated 05.03.2025 under Section 5 of the U.P. Control of Gundas Act 1970 was given to the petitioner without annexing the beat report and the copy of the GD on the basis of which the notice was given. However, since very short time was granted and the notice was received only on 16.03.2025, therefore, the petitioner sought time for filing objection. The same was granted. In the intervening period, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the show cause notice dated 05.03.2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2459 of 2025(Vijay Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. and others). During pendency of the petition, final order was passed on 27.03.2025 and on being pointed out to the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the petition was disposed of by means of the order dated 01.04.2025 with direction to the petitioner to file an appeal within 15 days alongwith interim application under Section 6(3) of Goondas Act. It was further provided that if the same is filed, as directed, within the time prescribed, then the interim relief application shall be considered expeditiously and the appeal shall also be decided by the Commissioner in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the appeal. He further submits that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed appeal on 04.04.2025 alongwith application for interim relief. The appeal has been admitted on being found prima facie ground in the appeal but the application for interim relief has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 21.04.2025. However, two days relaxation was granted to the petitioner on account of marriage of nephew. He further submits that thereafter the appellant is complying the externment order passed against him. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and once the prima facie grounds for consideration in the appeal has been found, the application for interim relief could not have been rejected. He further submits that the order of extension of period specified in the order of externment has been passed without considering the provisions of Rule 11 of the U.P.Control of Gundas Rules 1970, which provides that while making an order of extension of the period specified in the order made under Section 3, take into consideration the conduct of the person concerned during the period of the enforcement of the order under Section 8 and any fresh material that may be produced or brought to the notice of the District Magistrate. The Court below has also failed to consider it. Per contra, learned AGA submits that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, which is apparent from the order of extension of period specified in the order of externment dated 27.03.2025 but the opportunity was not availed by the petitioner. He further submits that there are 11 cases against the petitioner and even if in certain cases, he has been acquitted there are sufficient number of cases against him and there is a report of the concerned police station in regard to the petitioner. He further submits that the grounds raised by the petitioner may be considered by the appellate court and the appeal has already been directed to be decided in a time bound manner by the Division Bench of this Court by the aforesaid order. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to press his appeal and the grounds raised by the petitioner may be considered by the concerned court, which may be decided within period fixed by the Division Bench. To which there is no objection by learned AGA. In view of above, the petition is dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Akanksha Sri/- Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench