HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10193 of 2026 Court No. - 49 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mahendra Tripathi, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1 to 4. 2. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner-Keshan Pal has approached this Court by means of present writ petition with the following prayer: " It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus staying the effect and operation/execution of district externment order dated 16.03.2026 passed by respondent no.3 in Case No.1301/2025, Computerized Case No.D-202502420001301 (State Versus Keshan Pal), PR 2026 under section 3(3) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, Police Station Mahewaghat, District Kaushambi, during the pendency of the appeal pending before respondent no.2. b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to dispose of the appeal as well as stay application expeditiously/within stipulated period. c) to issue any suitable writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahendra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Keshan Pal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) d) to award cost of this petition in favour of petitioner." 3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that petitioner does which to press prayer no.1 as prayed for by means of present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of present writ petition submits that an externment order dated 16.03.2026 was passed by respondent-3, District Magistrate, Kaushambi, District-Kaushambi against petitioner in Case No. 1301 of 2025 (State Vs. Keshan Pal) under Section 3 (3) of U.P. Goondas Act, 1970, Police Station-Mahewaghat, District- Kaushambi, whereby petitioner was exterminated from the territorial limits of District-kaushambi for a period of 6 months . 5. Feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 16.03.2026, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj in terms of Section 6 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. The same was registered as Appeal No. C202602000000550 of 2026 (Keshan Pal Vs. State of U.P.). Alongwith the memo of appeal, petitioner filed an stay application seeking stay of the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed by respondent-3, the District Magistrate, Kaushambi. 6. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the aforesaid appeal was filed before the appellate authority, i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj on 30.03.2026. On the above premise, the learned counsel for petitioner in support of present writ petition submits that in spite of the fact that a period of approximately 43 days has rolled by from the date of filing the aforementioned appeal, however no order has been passed by the appellate authority on the stay application filed by petitioner alongwith memo of appeal preferred against the order dated 16.03.2026. 7. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the failure on the part of appellate authority in not passing any order on the stay application cannot be said to be justifiable in any view of the matter. Since the order challenged in appeal has serious civil consequences inasmuch as under the order dated 16.03.2026, the petitioner has been exterminated, CRLP No. 10193 of 2026 2 therefore, the appellate authority i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Prayagraj Division Prayagraj should not have allowed a swinging pendulum during the pendency of appeal. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in Mool Chand Yadav and another Vs. Raja Buland Sugar Company Ltd. Rampur & others 1982 (3) SCC 484 wherein the Apex Court has observed that in case the consequences of an order impugned in an appeal/revision are serious in nature then in such a circumstance, the appellate court/revisional Court should not permit a swinging pendulum during the pendency of appeal but must stay the effect and operation of such an order. 8. Deriving sustenance from the ratio laid down by Apex Court in aforementioned judgement, the learned counsel for petitioner thus submits that interest of justice shall better be served in case the present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to appellate authority i.e. Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj to decide aforementioned appeal preferred by petitioner within a time period fixed by this Court and in the interregnum the effect and operation of the order dated 16.03.2023 passed by respondent-2, District Magistrate, Kaushambi be kept in abeyance. 9. Per contra, the leaned A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1,2 and 3 has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. Learned A.G.A. submits that since petitioner has already approached the appellate authority, therefore, remedy lies to petitioner to approach the appellate authority itself for expeditious disposal of stay application. In support of his aforesaid submission, the learned A.G.A. has referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabd Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207. Reliance is placed upon paragraphs 41 and 42 of the aforesaid report. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1 to 4, upon perusal of record and considering the rival submissions urged by the counsel for the parties as noted herein above, we find that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this writ petition pending. It is an undisputed fact that against the CRLP No. 10193 of 2026 3 externment order dated 16.03.2026, petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj as provided under Section 6 of the U.P. Goondas Act 1970. Alongwith the memo of appeal, petitioner also filed an stay application seeking stay of the impugned externment order dated 16.03.2026 passed by respondent-3, the District Magistrate, Kaushambi during the pending of appeal. The life of externment order is six months. As such on date a period of almost two months have expired. We do not see any reason on the basis of which, responden-2 the Divisional Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj could have refused to exercise his jurisdiction in the matter. 11. In view of above, this writ petition shall stand disposed of finally with a direction to respondent-2, Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj to decided aforementioned appeal filed by petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production/presentation of a certified copy of this order. 12. Till the disposal of appeal or for a period of two months, whichever is earlier, the effect and operation of the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by respondent-3, District Magistrate, Kaushambi in Case No.1301 of 2025 (State Versus Keshan Pal) (Annesure-1 to the writ petiton) shall be kept in abeyance. May 12, 2026 YK CRLP No. 10193 of 2026 4 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad