- (1.) The relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be briefly stated as under: The Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Raebareli on 16.11.2009 issued a notice to the Petitioner under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with the allegation that on the basis of information received by him, it appeared that Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shanker Pandey (Petitioner), S/o Late Ram Kumar Pandey, R/o Korwa, P.S. Saraini, District Raebereli either commits offence himself or abets others to commit offences punishable under Chapter XV, XVI and XVIII of the Indian Penal Code. His general reputation is that he terrorises the people and is dangerous to the community. He operates his activity within the area of the district Raebareli. No person is ready to give evidence against him on account of his arduous activities. He is an accused in Crime No. 345/09, under Sections 452/323/504/506/324 IPC and 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act which was registered on the written report of Kallu Pasi, S/o Gayadin Pasi, R/o Village Korwa, P.S. Saraini, District Raebareli. The Investigating Officer of the case found sufficient evidence against him consequently he submitted charge-sheet against him. Another case is registered against him at Crime No. 1029/09, under Sections 436/504/506/427 IPC and 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act on the written report of Jhurakhan Pasi, S/o Sukhdin Pasi, R/o Katikaha, P.S. Saraini, District Raebareli The Investigating Officer found sufficient evidence against him consequently he submitted charge-sheet against him.
(2.) The Petitioner by the said notice was called upon to furnish written explanation as to why an externment order be not passed against him under Section 3 (3) of the Act. The Petitioner was served with the notice, he appeared before the learned Additional District Magistrate. He was allowed so many dates to file his written explanation but he could not file the same consequently the learned District Magistrate on the basis of materials available on record held him to be goonda and ordered for his externment for a period of six months by the impugned order dated 15.7.2010. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate preferred an appeal under Section 6 of the Act before the learned Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. The learned Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow found that the finding of the learned District Magistrate was based on documentary evidence, therefore, the impugned order passed by him did not suffer from any illegality consequently he dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment and order dated 08.9.2010 which has given rise to the present writ petition.
(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.;