- (1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the notice under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, dated 18-3-1993, issued by Addl. District Magistrate (Administration), Mathura. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed the notice served to the petitioner (copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition). The submission of the learned Counsel is that the notice impugned is wholly illegal and vague. He submitted that the proceedings for enquiry against the petitioner, cannot proceed in view of the Full Bench decision of our Court Ramji Pandey v. State of U.P., 1981 AllLJ 898.
(2.) After perusing the notice impugned, it is clearly shown that in paragraph 1 of the notice, the Respondents have said that petitioner is a person. Goonda, who himself and along with members of the gang commits offences punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code. He has reputation of being a person of dangerous and criminal nature. The life and property of the persons of police circle Kotwali District Mathura has become unsafe. Witnesses for their personal security and safety do not believe the petitioner. A list of about 21 cases containing the crime numbers and the sections have been enumerated. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a notice of this type is wholly vague and do not fulfil the requirement prescribed under Section 3(1) and the proforma prescribed for the issuance of notices under Section 3 of the Act. He placed the Full Bench decision in extenso. The facts of the Full Bench case and the application of cases pending against the petitioner of that case are very similar to the notice impugned in this case. We called upon the learned standing counsel for the State of U.P., who also was served with a notice. Learned standing counsel after perusing the impugned notice and in view of the Full Bench decision, consented that the writ petition be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. We also consider it just and proper that no useful purpose would be served if the petition is admitted and kept pending for years. Thus, we finally decide the writ petition, quash the notice dated 18-3-1993 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). We further direct that on the basis of the impugned notice no proceedings under Section 3 of the Act can proceed against the petitioner. However, if the Respondents consider it proper and necessary, they may issue fresh notice under Section 3(1) of the Act, according to the settled law as held by Full Bench Decision of our Court.
(3.) The petition is allowed.;