VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA,J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following prayers: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.02.2015 passed by opposite party no.2 -Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party no.2 -Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad to grant the interim/ stay order staying the operation and implementation of the order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, District Barabanki during the pendency of Appeal No.126/Barabanki, under Section 6 of the Goondas Act."
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(3.) BRIEF facts for deciding this petition are that an FIR had been lodged against the petitioner in Case Crime No.172 of 2013, under Sections 353, 186, 504, 506 IPC, Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Haidergarh, District Barabanki. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, a notice under Section 3 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Goonda Act') was issued by the District Magistrate, Barabanki against the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply against the notice denying all the allegations made in the notice under Section 3 of Goonda Act. The District Magistrate after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner passed an order on 28.01.2015 externing the petitioner for a period six months. Against the order dated 28.01.2015, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 6 of Goonda Act before learned Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad along with an application for interim relief. The learned Commissioner vide order dated 12.02.2015 admitted the appeal without passing any order on the interim application. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2015 and 28.01.2015, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that once an appeal is admitted for hearing, it is incumbent upon the authority to grant interim protection as observed by this Court in Radha Rani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.P. State Cold Storage Tribunal and others,2009 27 LCD 1391. In this case, the competence of the District Magistrate was under challenge for issuance of recovery citation. Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 36 of the U.P. Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976 before the Tribunal and the appeal was admitted. It was alleged that the opposite party inspite of pendency of the appeal proceeded to recover the amount in view of Section 25(2) of the aforesaid Act wherein it has been provided that during the pendency of appeal recovery certificate cannot be issued. The Division Bench of this Court granted interim protection to the petitioner from making any recovery during the pendency of the appeal,;