- (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned AGA.
(2.) A notice under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 has been served upon the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the notice in question is bad in law on account of the fact that material details and the substance of the offences have not been specified in the notice. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bhim Singh Tyagi v. State of U. R, 1999 (39) ACC 321 (FB) ; 1999 (2) JIC 192 (All) (FB ). We have perused the notice in question and feel that the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is well merited. The notice does not specify the material which was re quired to be specified in the light of the Full Bench decision aforesaid. Since the law on the point is well settled, we instead of dragging this petition unnecessarily, are inclined to dispose it of finally at this stage. The writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 16-8-99 Annexure 1 to the writ petition, issued under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 is hereby quashed. It is made clear that this order shall not be construed to mean that the authority concerned shall be debarred from issuing a fresh notice in accordance with the parameters laid down in the Full Bench decision aforesaid. Petition allowed. .;