Appellate Authority Lacks Statutory Power to Remand Proceedings Under U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970

The petitioner was subjected to proceedings under Section 3/4 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, in two rounds. In the first instance (Case No. 2586 of 2024), based on two criminal cases, the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) dropped the proceedings on 25.09.2024, concluding the petitioner was not a "Goonda".

Despite a documented criminal history of 19 cases reaching back to 2009, the State only cited a few cases in each round.

In the second round (17.12.2024), the ADM externed the petitioner for six months via an order dated 01.11.2025.

The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, who set aside the ADM’s order due to its contradictory nature but remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

The petitioner challenged the remand order under Article 226, arguing the appellate authority lacks the power to remand under the Act.

1. Whether the Commissioner, acting as an appellate authority under Section 6 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, has the jurisdiction to remand a matter back to the District Magistrate for fresh adjudication.

2. Whether the State’s selective use of criminal history to initiate repeated proceedings under the Act is sustainable when the full history was known during the initial proceedings.

Section 6 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, which defines the powers of the appellate authority.

Under Section 6(3), the Commissioner is restricted to three specific actions: confirming the order (with or without modification), setting it aside, or staying its operation pending disposal.

Administrative fairness and the definition of a "Goonda" under Section 2(b) of the Act.

The court analyzed the statutory language of Section 6 and found it to be exhaustive, notably lacking any provision for "remand".

The court observed that the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by remanding the case, as the power to "set aside" does not inherently include the power to order a trial de novo.

The court scrutinized the State’s procedural conduct; since the State was aware of all 19 criminal cases during the first round of litigation but chose to cite only two, it could not later use other old cases (from 2021 and earlier) to trigger a second round of proceedings after the first had been closed.

The court noted that no new criminal activity had been reported after 2021, and the petitioner had not been convicted in any matter, further undermining the necessity of the externment.

Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 to the extent that it remanded the matter back to the District Magistrate. However, the portion of the Commissioner's order that set aside the ADM's externment order dated 01.11.2025 was upheld as sustainable.