UP Goondas Act | Appellate Authority Cannot Remand Matters To District Magistrate For Fresh Decision: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed that the statute vests the appellate authority with the jurisdiction to either "confirm the order, with or without modification, or set it aside".

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Anil Chaudhary, challenging a December 2025 order of the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, which set aside his six-month externment but remanded the case for a fresh hearing.

Allowing his plea, the Court set aside the appellate authority's remand order, finding that it exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the matter to the District Magistrate.

Case in brief

Briefly put, the petitioner had a criminal history of 19 cases pending against him until 2021. However, in the first round of proceedings under Section 3/4 of the Act 1970, the State chose to rely on only two cases.

These proceedings were subsequently dropped by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Aligarh, on September 25, 2024, on the ground that the petitioner did not fall within the category of a 'Goonda'.

However, merely three months later, on December 17, 2024, a second round of proceedings was initiated. This time, the authorities relied selectively on another four of the original 19 cases.

Based on these cases, the ADM passed an impugned order on November 1, 2025, externing the petitioner for six months from the limits of District Aligarh.

However, this order was subsequently set aside by the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh, on December 17, 2025. The Commissioner had observed that, "on the basis of the same criminal cases, two contradictory orders could not have been passed by the District Magistrate".

Despite quashing the externment, the Commissioner remanded the matter to the District Magistrate to decide it afresh on the merits after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing.

Before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel argued that the state authorities had selectively chosen to take up cases against the petitioner, citing two cases in the first round of litigation and four in the second.

This was done despite the State being aware of the accused's criminal history, under which all 19 criminal cases were pending against him till the year 2021.

High Court's observations

Agreeing with the submissions of the petitioner's counsel, the bench took strong exception to the authorities' piecemeal approach. The High Court noted that all 19 cases were in the knowledge of the State during the first proceeding, yet "17 of them were deliberately not taken into consideration at that time".

"It is beyond comprehension, if the petitioner was having a criminal history of 19 cases way back in the year 2021 why only 2 and 4 cases were considered for initiating proceedings under the Act, 1970 against the petitioner. Nothing had stopped the State from proceeding against the petitioner by taking all the above 19 cases into consideration, but the State has not chosen to do so", the Court remarked.

Regarding the order of the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, remanding the matter back to the ADM order, Justice Jain examined Section 6(3) of the Act and clarified the statutory boundaries of the appellate authority.

"It is apparent that Section 6 of the Act, 1970 only vests the appellate authority the jurisdiction to either confirm the order, with or without modification, or to set it aside but the appellate authority cannot remand the matter back to the District Magistrate for deciding it afresh on merits under Section 3/4 of the Act, 1970", the Court held.

The Court ruled that the petition was liable to be set only on this short technical ground.

Therefore, upholding the Commissioner's decision to quash the externment order, the bench set aside the directive remanding the matter to the DM.

Noting that the petitioner was on bail in all cases and had not been convicted in any criminal case to date, the Court allowed the writ petition.