Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2713 (ALL)

Manveer Singh Tevatiya v. State Of U. P.

2017-11-23

RAMESH SINHA, VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : RAMESH SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Sand, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned order as well as material brought on record. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the administrative order dated 16.11.2017 passed by District Magistrate Ghaziabad, respondent no.2 vide letter no.943 by which the District Magistrate has restrained the petitioner to enter in the boundaries of District Ghaziabad. 3. The brief facts of the case which has been stated by the petitioner in his petition is that the petitioner is the President of Bhartiya Praja Party which Regional and Registered Office is situated at Lukshar, Imilia Road, Pargana Dankaur, district Gautam Budh Nagar. The State Government has acquired the land of village Mandola District Ghaziabad for developing the residential colony Mandola Vihar to be developed by Regional Developed Authority i.e. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. The authority concern acquired the land of the farmers of the village without releasing compensation and giving them 10% developed land as per direction issued by this Court. It is alleged that the authority concern i.e. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad has encroached the land of the villagers without fulfilling the demands of them and releasing compensation. Due to the arbitrary act of the Authority concern, Kisan Kalyan Samittee, Mandola, Ghaziabad conducted peaceful protest against the authority concern as well as administrative authorities. The protest of the farmers being a peaceful one, several political leaders and respectable persons of the society tried to settle the matter but instead of settling the matter by way of mutual consent, administrative authorities want to demolish the protest and want to encroach the land of villagers with the help of police and other armed forces. The petitioner who claims to be the leader of the farmers has supported the cause of the farmers apprehending danger to law and order situation which may be created in the district, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad passed an order on 17.5.2017 u/s 144 Cr.P.C. vide letter no.692 of 2017 restraining the petitioner to enter in the boundaries of the district Ghaziabad. It is stated that after lapse of administrative order dated 17.5.2017, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, respondent no.2 again extended the same on 30.6.2017 restraining the petitioner from entering the boundaries of the district after the lapse of the said order again on 15.7.2017 another order was passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and after lapse of the same again an order was passed on 22.9.2017 u/s 144 Cr.P.C. 4. The petitioner challenged the order dated 15.7.2017 passed by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, respondent no.2 before this Court by filing writ petition no.18557 of 2017 which was disposed of on 12.9.2017 giving certain directions to respondent no.2. Further the petitioner challenged the order dated 22.9.2017 before this Court in writ petition no.21520 of 2017 in which an interim order was passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 27.10.2017 and called for a short counter affidavit by the State and ultimately the said petition was dismissed as infructuous on 15.11.2017 as the administrative order dated 22.9.2017 has expired on 12.11.2017. On 16.11.2017, the District Magistrate respondent no.2 has again passed an order restraining the petitioner from entering the boundaries of district Ghaziabad till 5.12.2017, hence the instant petition by the petitioner challenging the said order. 5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner who claims himself to be leader of farmers and is a President of Bhartiya Praja Party is agitating the demands of the farmers whose land have been acquired by the authority concern without payment of their compensation for the purposes of developing the residential colony Mandola Vihar to be developed by Regional Developed Authority i.e. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. The protest of the farmers is a peaceful one and supported by several political leaders and respectable persons of the society. The protest of the farmers is a peaceful one and supported by several political leaders and respectable persons of the society. Hence the order passed by District Magistrate u/s 144 Cr.P.C. from 17.5.2017 continuously and extending the same time and again is on the pretext that there is an apprehension of danger to public tranquillity is baseless as the earlier District Magistrate and the S.S.P. Ghaziabad and the authority concern have assured the farmers that their demand would be taken up and settled by the authority concern and he stated that the then District Magistrate and S.S.P were transferred and the new District Magistrate, Ghaziabad respondent no.2 who has taken over the charge, has passed illegal orders against the petitioner restraining him from entering the boundaries of district Ghaziabad just to demolish the protest of the farmers which is a peaceful one. The orders passed by the District Magistrate at regular interval under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and the impugned order dated 16.11.2017 against the petitioner restraining him from entering the boundaries of District Ghaziabad cannot be passed. Further more it cannot be passed beyond six months subject to condition that the order is notified by the State Government in view of proviso contained u/s 144(4) Cr.P.C., hence impugned order is liable to be quashed and further stated that there is criminal record of the petitioner of 22 cases as has been stated by learned AGA, in ten cases, petitioner has been acquitted. 6. Learned AGA on the other hand opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents of 22 criminal cases which shows that he is a man of criminal background and he disturbs public tranquillity and creates a situation which disturbs law and order by holding rallies and speeches which may provoke the mob who attend his meetings and he has drawn attention of the Court towards an incident which was led by the petitioner and resulted in a large scale of violence at Bhatta Parsol district Gautam Buddh Nagar, thus the District Magistrate, respondent no.2 is within his powers to pass such orders restraining his entry in the district Ghaziabad to prevent the disturbance of public tranquillity or riot and danger to human life, health or safety. The District Magistrate has passed fresh orders at regular intervals against the petitioner taking into account his activities which he apprehended disturbance of the public tranquillity in the district in view of Section 144 Cr.P.C. and Section 144(3) Cr.P.C empower the District Magistrate to pass such orders to prevent any untoward situation which may disturb the public tranquillity because of the activities of the petitioner. 7. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as material brought on record. It is evident that an order u/s 144 Cr.P.C. has been passed against the petitioner from 17.5.2017 till the passing of the impugned order by the District Magistrate at regular intervals apprehending the danger to human life, health or safety and disturbance of public tranquillity taking into account the criminal record of the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that there has been any illegality or arbitrariness in passing of the impugned order by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad respondent no.2, furthermore the said order is stated to be effective till 5.12.2017, thus we do not find any good ground for quashing of the same, hence no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner. 8. The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.