- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.
(2.) We have perused the notice which does not bear any date of its issuance though the date for appearance of the petitioner is fixed 28-5-2003 at 10.00 A.M. and also for filing of his response meaning thereby the notice must have been issued in close proximity of the date it bears for appearance. There is another glaring fact available from the record that the report for issuance of notice was sent to the Magistrate on 23rd August, 2002. The District Magistrate remained sleeping over the report for over 8 months. Suddenly his slumber was broken and the notice was issued to the petitioner as stated above. These facts undoubtedly indicate the callous approach of the concerned authority. This further indicates that the notice was issued without any application of mind whatsoever. It was not seen whether the action is necessary even now. The conduct of the concerned authority in utilising the relevant provisions against any person before actually exercising the power with reason leave much to speak about. These are deterrent provisions. They are enacted to control a professional law breaker from disturbing the public peace and tranquility of the affected town, any area or locality. Use of such provisions against any citizen should and must be adhered to under most compelling circumstances. It must not be frittered away capriciously, maliciously and callously. Any such callous approach by the concerned authority simply tends to show their partition (sic) ship. Apart from it, it further shows their living up with the politicians. Such a conduct on the part of the executive officers and those who are enjoined with the task of enforcing the law is highly deplorable. In these circumstances it further contemplates payment of compensation to the sufferer either by the Government or by such authorities themselves. We, therefore, caution the executive and police authorities to exercise these powers rationally and fairly without any prejudice, bias or vendetta. Any such exercise in future by these officers using preventive measures against the citizen shall not be taken lying low by this Court by merely quashing the notice. The petitioner is free to file a petition or a suit for damages or compensation against the concerned District Magistrate and police officer who had issued this notice to him in such an unlawful manner which causes serious loss of face to him in the society.
(3.) In view of these facts, adverted to above, we allow this petition and hereby quash the undated notice issued under Section 3(i) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 which was served on the petitioner for his appearance on 28-5-2003. Petition allowed.;