- (1.) THE petitioner has come up with a prayer to quash the notice dated 30-8-1995 issued by the District Magistrate, Etawah under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. A further prayer has been made to command the respondent No. 2 not to proceed and take any action against the petitioner pur suant to the aforementioned notice.
(2.) ON 14-9-1995, the following in terim order was passed by this Court: "learned Additional Government Advo cate prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter- affidavit List this petition im mediately thereafter. Until further order peti tioner will not be arrested in pursuance of the notice dated 30-8-1995 issued under U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. Petitioner will show cause within 10 days from today, if not already shown the cause in pursuance of the impugned notice. It will be open to District Magistrate, Etawah to proceed with the notice without arresting the peti tioner. " Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Ji Pandey v. State of U. P. and others, 1982 (19) ACC 6 (FB) (Sum ). Sri Farman Naqvi, learned A. G. A. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, contended that the reliance of Mr. Mishra on the Full Bench decision is not of much help in view of series of deci sions rendered by this Court subsequently, one of which is Writ Petition No. 2954 of 1996 Babban Choudhary v. Additional District Magistrate, Mattiura and another disposed of on 22-1-1997 by G. P. Mathur and D. C. Srivastava, JJ. Besides this peti tioner has not disclosed as to whether he has filed his show cause and if so what fate it met.
(3.) FOLLOWING the aforementioned de cision in Babban Chaudhary, we decline to accede to the request made by the peti tioner. However, there is yet another aspect of the matter, namely, that while issuing copy of the aforementioned notice the Thanadhyaksha, Vidhuna the District Magistrate had directed him to arrest the petitioner and produce the petitioner be fore him till 13-9-1995. About this the contention of Mr. Mishra was that this course of action was wholly unjustified. This grievance of Mr. Mishra could not be successfully rebutted by Mr. Naqvi. We are handicapped as none of the party is in a position to tell us whether any final order has been passed or not?;