Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : U.P. Control Of Goondas Act- Notice U/s 3 Can Be Challenged In Writ Only When It Is Illegal.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Bachcharaj Vs. State Of U.P. & Others On 25/02/2008 By Allahabad High Court
CORAM : Hon'ble Syed Rafat Alam,J. And Hon'ble Raghunath Kishore Rastogi,J


Court No. 32

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4219 Of 2007
Bachcharaj Vs. State Of U.P. And Others

Hon'ble S.Rafat Alam, J
Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J

List Has Been Revised. Despite That None Responded On Behalf Of The Petitioner Though Name Of Mr. S. K. Srivastava Is Shown As His Counsel In The Cause List. Learned A.G.A. Is, However, Present For The State. We Have Perused The Record.

This Writ Petition Has Been Filed For Quashing The Notice Dated 22.2.2007 Issued By The District Magistrate , Fatehpur Against The Petitioner Under Section 3 Of The U.P. Control Of Goondas Act( Hereinafter Referred To As 'Act') In Case No. 91/2007 State Vs. Bachchharaj.

Pursuant To The Aforesaid Notice The Petitioner Was Required To Appear In The Court Of District Magistrate , Fatehpur On 26.3.2007 And To Show Cause As To Why An Order Be Not Passed Under Section 3 Of The Act. The Petitioner Has Challenged The Vires Of The Notice And Also Prayed For Stay Of The Proceedings Of The Above Case Till Disposal Of This Writ Petition.

It Will Be Useful To Go Through The Relevant Portions Of Section 3 Of The Act Which Runs As Under:
"3. Externment, Etc. Of Goondas:-(1) Where It Appears To The District Magistrate-
(a) That Any Person Is A Goonda; And
(b) (i) That His Movements Or Acts In The District Or Any Part Thereof Are Causing, Or Are Calculated To Cause Alarm, Danger Or Harm To Persons Or Property ; Or
(ii) That There Are Reasonable Grounds For Believing That He Is Engaged Or About To Engage, In The District Or Any Part Thereof, In The Commission Of An Offence Referred To In Sub-clause(i) To (iii) Of Clause (b) Of Section 2, Or In The Abetment Of Any Such Offence; And
(c) That Witnesses Are Not Willing To Come Forward To Give Evidence Against Him By Reason Of Apprehension On Their Part As Regards The Safety Of Their Person Or Property-
the District Magistrate Shall By Notice In Writing Inform Him Of The General Nature Of The Material Allegations Against Him In Respect Of Clauses (a),(b) And (c) And Give Him A Reasonable Opportunity Of Tendering An Explanation Regarding Them."

In This Background Now We Take Up The Impugned Notice Which Has Been Filed As Annexure No.1 To The Writ Petition . In Its Para Ka It Has Been Stated That The Accused Bachchharaj Son Of Sri Krishna Kewat R/o Ashat, P.S. Kishanpur District Fatehpur Is A Goonda And He Is In The Habit Of Committing Offence Punishable Under Chapters XVI, XVII And XXII Of The Indian Penal Code And He Is Generally Reputed To Be A Person Who Is Desperate And Dangerous To The Community. Then In Para (Kha) It Has Been Stated That He Is Doing The Activities In The Area Of Police Station Kishanpur And His Activities Are Such As Causing Danger And Harm To The Persons And Property Of The People Residing In That Area . Then It Was Alleged In Para (Ga) That The Witnesses Were Not Willing To Come Forward Against Him Due To Reason Of Apprehension As Regards To Safety Of Their Person And Property. Thereafter It Has Been Stated In The Notice That The General Nature Of Material Allegations In Respect Of The Aforesaid Three Grounds Was Being Given In The Subsequent Paras Of The Notice And Then In Paras 1 To 4 Of The Notice Those Particulars Have Been Stated Giving Reference Of The Cases Against Him And Also Describing The Allegations Against Him In Respect Of Each Case. It Is Thus Clear That The Notice Complies With All Requirements Of The Act And There Is No Illegality In The Notice.
In The Case Of Ramji Pandey Vs. State Of U.P. : 1981(7) ALR 401(F.B.) The Notice Under The Act Was Declared Illegal On The Ground That Only Crime Numbers Of The Cases Pending Against The Accused Were Mentioned In The Notice And Facts Of Those Offences Were Not Mentioned . It Was Further Held That The Term "general Nature Of Material Allegations" Means Essential Assertion Of Facts Related To Matters Set Out In Clauses (a),(b) And (c) Of Section 3(1) Of The Act Though There Is No Need To Refer To Evidence Or Any Other Particulars Or Details . It Is To Be Seen That In The Present Case, Full Particulars Of The Facts Of Each Case Have Been Described In The Notice And It Completely Complies With The Requirement Of Law.
In The Case Of Bhim Sen Tyagi Vs. State Of U.P. And Others : (1999)1 Selected Allahabad Cases 512 A Full Bench Consisting Of Five Hon'ble Judges Of This Court Held That Only An Illegal Notice E.g. One Which Does Not Show General Nature Of Material Allegations Can Be Challenged By Filing Writ Petition, And When The Notice Is Valid The Aggrieved Persons Should Approach The Concerned Authority, Who Had Issued The Notice. In The Present Case The Impugned Notice Complies With The Legal Requirements And So It Can Not Be Challenged Before This Court.
The Position In This Way Is That In The Present Case The Notice Was Issued By The Authority Who Had Jurisdiction To Issue The Same And It Complies With All Requirements Of Law And Of The Rules, And There Is No Illegality In The Notice, Hence The Present Writ Petition Filed By The Petitioner Challenging The Above Notice Is Not Maintainable And Is Liable To Be Dismissed. The Writ Petition Is , Accordingly, Dismissed. The Stay Order Dated 3.4.2007 Stands Vacated.

Go to Navigation