Uttarakhand High Court: Commissioner cannot remand Goonda Act externment cases for fresh decision

Hem Shikha complained to the District Magistrate that Puneet Agarwal’s alleged conduct—including threats and assaults—had created fear among residents.

Following an inquiry, the District Magistrate issued notice under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, and, by order dated 14 May 2026, declared Agarwal a “Goonda” under Section 3(3) and directed his externment from Dehradun district.

The order referred to criminal cases, residents’ statements and complaints, an SDM report, and electronic material.

Agarwal appealed under Section 6. On 18 July 2026, the Commissioner set aside the District Magistrate’s order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, referring, among other things, to civil litigation and the status of the FIRs.

Hem Shikha challenged the appellate order; Agarwal separately challenged the remand direction.

Whether the Commissioner, exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Act, could remand the matter to the District Magistrate for fresh adjudication.

Whether the Commissioner’s interference with the externment order was justified, having regard to the material and statutory requirements governing the proceedings.

Section 6(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 empowers the Commissioner to confirm an order, with or without modification, or to set it aside; it does not expressly confer a power to remand, and the Commissioner cannot exercise an incidental power contrary to the statutory scheme.

Section 8 requires consideration of the nature and probative value of evidence in proceedings under the Act.

The statutory safeguards governing externment require the competent authority to act on relevant material and afford a meaningful opportunity to answer the allegations; a notice must disclose the general nature of the material allegations (*Ramji Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh*).

The Court also relied on *Anil Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh* as authority that Section 6 does not permit remand for fresh adjudication on the merits.

Criminal cases, their pendency or outcome, and confidential reports do not, by themselves, determine whether the statutory grounds for externment are met.

The Court held that the Commissioner exceeded the authority conferred by Section 6(3) by remanding the matter.

It also found that, in setting aside the District Magistrate’s order, the Commissioner focused on the civil disputes and the status of the FIRs without addressing other material relied on by the District Magistrate, including the SDM’s confidential report, residents’ statements and complaints, and electronic evidence.

While none of those categories of material conclusively establishes the grounds for externment on its own, the appellate authority was required to examine the relevant material and the statutory basis for the order before interfering.

It allowed Hem Shikha’s writ petition, set aside the appellate order dated 18 July 2026, and dismissed Agarwal’s writ petition insofar as it challenged the remand direction.

No order as to costs; pending applications were disposed of.