HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16360 of 2025 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of externment passed against the petitioner under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 as well as rejection of his appeal by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut by means of order dated 06.09.2024. 3. Learned counsel for petition has submitted that both the orders for externment as well as dismissal of appeal are illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as none of the grounds raised by the petitioner before the authorities have either been considered. Apart from the above, he submits that entire proceedings were initiated on the basis of solitary case and there is no material to show that the petitioner is a goonda as per the definition given in Section 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has submitted that the writ petition has been filed extremely belatedly inasmuch as the appellate order was also passed on 06.09.2024 which is more than one year and even if the said order is quashed no benefit will arise to the petitioner and it would be mere an academic exercise. 5. Considering the rival contention, it is noticed that the order of externment was passe don 04.03.2024 exterming the petitioner from the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar, Vijai Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Nepal Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) district for a period of three months inasmuch as no interim protection was granted to the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. The said delay would have come to an end on 15.06.2024 and the appeal was also rejected on 06.09.2024. This Court does not find any fruitful reason for filing the present writ petition with such a delay after a period of externment has long expired. Interference in the present case as sought by the petitioner would only be a mere an academic exercise and accordingly this Court does not find any reason to exercise inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court as per Section 528 of BNSS. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not interfered the matter and only after looking into the delay in filing the present writ petition and this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. September 18, 2025 Ravi/- CRLP No. 16360 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad