J.BHALLA AND IKRAM-UL-BARI, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against Notice issued under section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice is not in accordance with law as it is of general na­ture and not a single incident has been re­lied upon. Further no specific activity has been indicated in the notice, therefore, the notice' is bad in law and liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, he relied upon that Full Bench decision re­ported in flam/7 Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, 1982 (19) ACC 6 (Sum) = 1981 All CJ 385. 59 and another case decided by this Court on 3.11.93 W.P. No. 3209 (MB) of 1995, Mewa v. State of U.P. In W.P. No. 3209 (MB) of 1995 re­liance has been placed upon a reported case of State of Gujarat v. Mahbub Khan, AIR 1968 SC 1468. it has been held that the Notice under section 3(i) should necessarily contain, assertions of fact in relation to the matter set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (i) of section 3 of the Act. However, it need not refer to any evidence or other details.
(3.) WE are in agreement with the view taken by this Court as indicated here-inabove and the judgment of the Apex Court and after giving anxious considera­tion we are of the opinion that the im­pugned notice dated 10.6.91 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, notice dated 10.6.91 is quashed. We further direct that in pursuance of the said Notice respondents shall not initiate any proceed­ings against the petitioner.;