- (1.) J. C. Gupta and S. K. Agarwal, J. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A.
(2.) SINCE the validity of the show cause notice has been challenged on a point of law, we find that even without having any counter-affidavit this writ petition can be disposed of. Learned AGA has also no objection to this proposition. Undisputadly against all the petitioners show-cause notices under Sec tion 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act were issued by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur. Copy of the said notices are annexures No. 1, 2 and 3 to the writ peti tion. It is argued by the petitioners' Counsel Shri R. B. Sahai, that even taking the allegations of the impugned notices to be correct on their face value, none of the petitioners are covered by the term "goondas" under the aforesaid Act. 'goondas' has been defined under clause B of Section 2 as follows: "goondas" 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 of fence punishable under Section 153 or Section 153-B 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 in Women and Girls Act, 1956; or (iii) has been convicted not less than thrice for an offence punishable under the U. P. Excise Act, 1990 or the Public Gambling Act, 1967 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 com munity; or (v) has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing woman or girls; or (vi) is a tout.
(3.) IT is not disputed by the learned AGA also that notice under Section 3 can be issued against a person who is a 'goonda' within the meaning of the aforesaid definition and from a perusal of the definition it emerges that before a person can be called a 'goonda' it must be alleged and shown that he either by himself or as a member or the leader of the gang habitually commits or attempts to commit, to abets commission of an of fence punishable under Section 153 or 153-B or Section 294 of the I. P. C. or Chapter-X V, Chapter-XVI, Chapter-XVII or' Chapter-XXII, of the said Code. He could also be placated as a Goonda if condition of sub clause (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) arc also satisfied inasmuch as where it is found that he has been convicted for an offence punish able under the Suppression of the Immoral Traffic in Woman and Girls Act or was con victed not less than thrice for an offence punishable under U. P. Excise Act or the Public Gambling Act or Section 25, Section 27 or Section 29 of the Arms Act or is generally reputed to be a person, who is desperate and dangerous to the community, or he has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women and girls or is a tout with in the meaning of the Explanation. In the present case admittedly Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are inapplicable. In the impugned notice it is alleged by the District Magistrate that the petitioners are habitually committing offences under Chapter XV, XVI, XVII, XXII of the Penal Code. Details of such offences in the impugned notices astound us. Notices do not discloses any offences under the above Chapters of the Penal Code. One case relat ing to Arms Act is also mentioned in the notices. However, it is nowhere alleged in the said notices, that any of the petitioners have suffered three convictions for the above said offences under the Arms Act. The notice discloses commission of offences under the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act which is not mentioned in either of the clauses of the definition of the impugned Act. The fact that no offence under I. P. C. is available. Yet in the narration, in the very beginning of the notices made by the Dis trict Magistrate that he is satisfied that the petitioners are habitually committing of fence enumerated under Chapters XV, XVI, XVII and XXII of the Penal Code leaves no room for any doubt in our mind that the impugned notices were issued in a routine manner without any exhibition of applica tion of mind by the authority concerned. The stereo typed notices appear to have been signed by the District Magistrate in a manner which professes his utter dis regard for personal liberty of a citizen.;