S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Rastogi - (1.) -In the instant writ petition the petitioner has questioned validity of the notice dated 20.3.2007 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued under Section 3 of U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (in short the Act).
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner is an advocate for the District Court, Muzaffarnagar, and has no criminal antecedent, inasmuch as, he has not been involved in any criminal case nor any anti-social activity except the incident mentioned in the impugned notice as Case Crime No. 75 of 2005, under Sections 186, 353 and 504, I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffarnagar and thus, he does not come within the meaning of Goonda, as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is co-owner of a large number of properties and some of them are under the tenancy of various departments of the State Government. It is stated that one of the house known as 'Sheronwali Kothi' situated in City Muzaffarnagar is under the tenancy of the State Government. However, when there was default in the payment of rent S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2001 Yatendra Kumar Jain and others v. State of U. P. and another, was filed for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, which was allowed and decreed vide judgment dated 30.8.2003. It is stated that the above judgment has also been affirmed by the High Court in Civil Revision No. 758 of 2003 vide judgment dated 22.10.2003. Similarly, in another house, in which police club was inducted as tenant by original tenant Harish Tayal, an application was moved for enhancement of rent. The said application was partly allowed vide judgment dated 23.9.2003 and the tenants were directed to pay Rs. 2,76,000 towards annual rent. The enhancement of rent was challenged before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 40467 of 2006 and 40470 of 2006. It is further submitted before us that in the aforesaid writ petitions the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar appeared in person and gave undertaking to vacate the premises by 31st December, 2006. It is submitted that the local administration was having grudge and prejudice against the petitioner and therefore, the impugned notice has been issued only to harass and put pressure on him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relying on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar and others, 1984 (3) SCC 14, submitted that the alleged single incident, mentioned in the impugned notice, does not come within the definition of clause (1) of Section 2 (b) of the Act, hence it cannot be said that the petitioner was habitually committing or attempting to commit an offence to level him as Goonda. On the other hand, learned A.G.A., opposed the writ petition and submitted that the order impugned is simply a notice calling upon the petitioner only to show cause and thus, he instead of approaching this Court ought to have shown cause before the concerned authority and therefore, this petition is premature and does not lie at this stage.
(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made before us. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines 'Goonda' which is as under : "(b) 'Goonda' means a person who- (i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of an offence punishable under Section 153 or Section 153B or Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the said Code ; or (ii) has been convicted for an offence punishable under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 ; or (iii) has been convicted not less than thrice for an offence punishable under the U. P. Excise Act, 1910 or the Public Gambling Act, 1867 or Section 25, Section 27 or Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959 ; or (iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community ; or (v) has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women or girls ; or (vi) is a tout ; Explanation.-'Tout' means a person who- (a) accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means any public servant or member of Government, Parliament or of State Legislature, to do or forbear to do anything or to show favour or disfavour to any person or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person, which the Central or State Government, Parliament or State Legislature, any local authority, corporation, Government company or public servant ; or (b) procures, in consideration of any remuneration moving from any legal practitioner interested in any legal business, or proposes to any legal practitioner or to any person interested in legal business to procure, in consideration of any remuneration moving from either of them, the employment of legal practitioner in such business ; or (c) for the purposes mentioned in Explanation (a) or (b), frequents the precincts of civil, criminal or revenue courts, revenue or other offices, residential colonies or residences or vicinity of the aforesaid or railway or bus stations, landing stages, lodging places or other places or public resort ; or (vii) is a house-grabber. Explanation. - "House-grabber" means a person who takes or attempts to take or aids or abets in taking unauthorized possession or having lawfully entered unlawfully remains in possession, of a building including land, garden, garages or out-houses appurtenant to a building." ;