- (1.) J. P. Semwal, J. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the notice dated 3-10-1991 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the petitioner directing him to appear before him on 24-2-1992 at 10 a. m.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition, are that proceedings under the Act were initiated against the petitioner on the police report dated 1-4-1991 and a notice under Section 3 of the Act was sent to the police on 3-10-1991 for service on the petitioner which was not received back after service. THE Addl. District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar then sent letters as well as D. O. letters to the Superintendent of Police (City) for returning the notice after service. Even the notice was not returned, nor any report was sent by the police in this regard. THE Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar then on 24-2-1992 passed an order that the police is not keen to pursue the matter and has failed to serve the notice, hence there is no alternative but to consign the file (Annexure No. 2 to the petition ). THE Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar thus consigned the file of Case No. 42 of 91-State v. Faiyaz Ahmad, and sent a copy of the said order to the Superintendent of Police (City ). It is alleged by the petitioner that when the petitioner made a com plaint the Station Officer concerned Sri H. S. Shukla then he again moved an application in the court of respondent No. 2, the Additional Distt. Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, for taking action and issuing notice under Section 3 of the Act on the basis of the police report dated 1-4-1991. The Additional District Magistrate (City) passed an order dated 4-4-1992 on the said application for issuing the notice against the petitioner. A copy of the said application moved by the police concerned before the respondent No. 2 is Annexure No. 3 to the petition. It appears that on the basis of this application of the police, the Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar issued a notice under Section 3 of the Act to the petitioner fixing the date for appearance of the petitioner on 22-4-1992 (after scoring the original dated 31-10-1991) at 10 a. m. (Annexure No. 1 to the petition ). The Case No. 42 of 91, which was consigned by the Additional District Magistrate (City) by his order dated 24-2-1992 (Annexure No. 2 to the petition) was given new no. 40 of 1992. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 3-10-1991 under Section3 of the Act as well as the order of the Magistrate dated 4-4-1992 for issuing notice again on the application of the police (Annexure No. 3 ). I have heard Sri A. C. Nigam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Bisaria, learned Additional Government Advocate and have perused the record. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner the scheme of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, which provides for a summary procedure for taking action against the person whose activities jeopardise peace and safety of the citizens in a particular locality, may be examined. The preamble of this Act shows that it was enacted for the control of Goondas and safety of the citizens with a view to maintain the public order. The Act confers powers on the District Magistrate or any other person specially authorised in that regard by the State Government to extern a Goonda outside the district or a part thereof for a period not exceeding six months. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines "goonda" in the following manner :- "2 (b) "goonda" means a person who- (i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitu ally commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offence punishable under Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code; or (ii) has been convicted under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic it Women and Girls Act, 1956 ; or (iii) has been convicted not less than thrice under the U. P. Excise Act, 1910 ; or (iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community. "
(3.) IT is thus clear that any person who falls within one or more aforesaid clauses will be a "goondas" within the meaning of this Act. Section 3 of this Act gives power to the District Magistrate for externment of Goondas. This is a very important section which the District Magistrate or any other person specially empowered in this regard by the State Government must comply strictly. This Act is extraordinary in nature. The provisions of this Act permit the externment of a citizen without a judicial trial. The first requirement of Section 3 is embodied in sub-section (1 ). The District Magistrate has to satisfy himself that any person is Goonda and 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 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 any offence punishable under Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code, or under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, or under the U. P. Excise Act, 1910, or in the abetment of any such offence and further 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. It is on this satisfaction of the aforesaid requirements regarding the existence of provisions of Section 3 (1) that the District Magistrate is empowered to issue notice in writing to the person against whom an order of the externment under Section 3 is proposed to be made and inform him of the general nature of material allegations against him in respect of clauses (a), (b), (c) and give him a reasonable opportunity to tender an explanation regarding them.;