In a petition filed before the Allahabad High Court to challenge an order dated 25-02-2026 by the Additional District magistrate, Finance and Revenue, Amethi in a case under Section 3/4 of the U.P. Control of Goonda Act, 1970, whereby the petitioner was declared to be a Goonda based on his involvement in two criminal cases, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi quashed the impugned orders while allowing the petition.
The petitioner challenged the decision by an appeal under Section 6 of the Goonda Act, which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ayodhya. This petition also challenged the validity of the appellate order.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Refuses Fresh Injunction Bid Against “BOULT” in BOAT Trademark Dispute
The Court referred to various judicial precedents and held that involvement of the petitioner in two criminal cases, one in 2021 and another one in 2025, does not establish that he is a habitual offender. It was stated that the petitioner was already facing prosecution for the two cases and said that it is not that he could not be dealt with under the ordinary penal law. The Court stated that he was declared to be a Goonda merely based on his previous involvement and that there was no allegation that he was a threat to the maintenance of public order.
The Court stated that a beat report would not provide a ground to declare a person to be a Goonda when no investigation follows the said report and there is no prima facie involvement of the person in the offence mentioned in the beat report. Hence, the Court opined that the impugned order as well as the Commissioner’s order were not sustainable in law.
Thus, the impugned orders were quashed and the petition was allowed.
