- (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.
(2.) PETITIONER is challenging the show cause notice under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act. Learned Counsel relies upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in Imaran alias Abdul Quddus Khan v. State of U.P. and others, (Cr. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7111 of 1999) decided on 30 -11 -1999, reported in 2000 (1) Alld. Civil Journal 108, and also upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bhim Singh Tyagi v. State of U.P., 1999(2) JIC 192 (All) ; 1999 U.P. Crl. Rulings 417 and Ramji Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, (1982) U.P. Crl. Rulings 1 (Full Bench).
(3.) ON the other hand the Supreme Court has held in 1995 (8) J.T. (sic) Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 691 vide Para 10 that a writ petition against a show cause notice should not be ordinarily entertained. Hence the writ petition at this stage is premature and this Court is not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because a show cause notice by itself does not give rise to a cause of action, as no adverse order has as yet been passed.;