Allahabad HC Strikes Down Commissioner's Remand Order Under UP Goondas Act, Holds Appellate Power Does Not Include Remand

Justice Sandeep Jain holds that Section 6 of the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970 limits the Commissioner's appellate power to confirming or setting aside orders, with no power to remand the matter to the District Magistrate for fresh adjudication.

The Allahabad High Court has allowed a writ petition filed by Anil Chaudhary, setting aside a remand order passed by the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. Justice Sandeep Jain, sitting singly in Court No. 73, held that Section 6 of the Act, 1970 confers on the appellate authority — the Commissioner — only the power to confirm, modify, or set aside an order under Section 3, 4, or 5 of the Act. No power to remand the matter to the District Magistrate for fresh adjudication exists within that provision. The judgment also took note of what the court described as the selective use of criminal cases by the State in initiating proceedings against the petitioner across two separate rounds of litigation, while the State was at all times aware of a 19-case criminal history.

Two Rounds of Externment Proceedings Against the Same Person

Proceedings under Section 3/4 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 were first initiated against Anil Chaudhary through Case No. 2586 of 2024. The basis for those proceedings was only two criminal cases — Case Crime No. 147 of 2021 and Case Crime No. 148 of 2021, both registered at Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh, under Sections 417 and 420 IPC and provisions of the U.P. Regulation of Cold Storage Act, 1976. The Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Aligarh concluded vide order dated 25 September 2024 that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of “Goonda” under the Act, 1970, and the show cause notice dated 22 March 2024 was taken back. The proceedings were closed. The State did not challenge that order in appeal.

About three months later, on 17 December 2024, a second round of proceedings was initiated against the petitioner, this time on the basis of four criminal cases: Case Crime No. 230 of 2021 (Section 420 IPC, Section 60(1) UP Excise Act, PS Gonda), Case Crime No. 232 of 2021 (Section 2/3 UP Gangsters Act, PS Gonda), Case Crime No. 269 of 2021 (Sections 272, 273, 304, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 60-A UP Excise Act, PS Khair), and Case Crime No. 276 of 2021 (Sections 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 60-A UP Excise Act, PS Khair), all from District Aligarh.

By order dated 1 November 2025, the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Aligarh externed the petitioner for six months from the limits of District Aligarh. The petitioner appealed before the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, under Section 6 of the Act, 1970, as Case No. 1782 of 2025. The Commissioner partly allowed the appeal. Finding that the District Magistrate had passed contradictory orders, the Commissioner set aside the externment order dated 1 November 2025 but remanded the matter back to the District Magistrate for fresh adjudication on merits after hearing both sides. This remand, recorded in the Commissioner's order dated 17 December 2025, became the primary subject of the writ petition before the High Court.

The Jurisdiction Question Under Section 6 of the Act, 1970

The petitioner's counsel argued that the Commissioner had no power to remand the matter. Section 6 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 was placed before the court. Sub-section (3) of that provision reads: the Commissioner may either confirm the order, with or without modification, or set it aside, and may, pending disposal of the appeal, stay the operation of the order. The provision is exhaustive. It does not include any power of remand.

The Government Advocate for the State could not dispute this position. The court recorded that the State's counsel was unable to contest the argument that Section 6 of the Act, 1970 does not vest the appellate authority with any power to remand the case to the District Magistrate for fresh decision on merits.

The court accepted the submission. Justice Jain held that the appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the matter, since no such power was vested in it under Section 6 of the Act, 1970. On this ground alone, the court held, the remand portion of the Commissioner's order was unsustainable.

Selective Use of Criminal History Across Both Rounds

The court also examined a wider factual pattern. The DCRB report for District Aligarh dated 5 March 2024 listed 19 criminal cases pending against the petitioner, all from the years 2009, 2012, and 2021. These included multiple cases under the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, several cases involving Sections 272, 273, and 304 IPC read with Section 60-A of the UP Excise Act across different police stations in Aligarh district, and cases under the IPC involving cheating and forgery.

The court observed that when the first round of proceedings was initiated, the State was aware of all 19 cases but chose to rely on only two of them. Those two cases were ultimately found insufficient by the ADM to bring the petitioner within the definition of Goonda, and the proceedings were dropped. When the second round of proceedings was initiated three months later, the State again selected only four cases from the same criminal history that had been in State records throughout.

Justice Jain noted that it was beyond comprehension why, if the petitioner had a criminal history of 19 cases by the year 2021, only two were considered in the first round and only four in the second. Nothing had prevented the State from proceeding on the basis of all 19 cases at either stage.

The court also recorded that after 2021, no fresh criminal history had been brought to its notice. The petitioner was on bail in all 19 cases and had not been convicted in any of them.

What the Commissioner's Order Got Right and What It Got Wrong

The Commissioner, Aligarh Division, had correctly identified that the District Magistrate had passed contradictory orders — acquitting the petitioner of the Goonda label in the first round on a limited set of cases, and then externing him in the second round on a different but overlapping set drawn from the same overall criminal history. The Commissioner's conclusion that contradictory orders could not have been passed on the basis of the same criminal cases was, in the court's view, well-founded.

Where the Commissioner went wrong was in the consequential direction. Having set aside the externment order, the Commissioner remanded the matter back to the District Magistrate. Justice Jain held that the setting aside of the externment order was perfectly legal, but the remand direction was beyond the powers granted by Section 6 of the Act, 1970. The two parts of the Commissioner's order were thus treated separately: the part setting aside the externment order dated 1 November 2025 was upheld; the part remanding the matter back to the District Magistrate was set aside.

Outcome

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The order dated 17 December 2025 passed by the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, was set aside to the extent it remanded the matter back to the District Magistrate, Aligarh. The portion of the Commissioner's order setting aside the District Magistrate's externment order dated 1 November 2025 was upheld. The further proceedings initiated in pursuance of the remand direction were also brought to an end.