- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, at length and in detail. Sri Vinai Malaviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U. P representing the respondents, has also been heard.
(2.) THE respondents were granted time to file counter-affidavit as long back as on 10-11-1993, but no counter-affidavit has been filed on their behalf. Inasmuch as the adjudication of the controversy involved in the petition is purely of a legal nature, the learned coun sel of the parties jointly agreeand pray that the petition may be disposed of finally notwithstanding the fact that it has not been admitted formally. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to do so. The notice dated 1-10-1993 issued to the petitioner, under Section 3 of the U. R Control of Goondas Act, 1970, hereinafter called the Act, a copy whereof is Annexure-II to the petition, is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) SRI Satish Trivedi, learned counsel of the petitioner, submits that the im pugned notice is not in conformity with the requirements of Section 3 of the Act inas much as it does not inform the petitioner of the general nature of the material al legations against him. It cannot be gainsaid that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Ramji Pandey v. State of U. P. and others, 1981 ACJ 385 (FB), approved by the larger Full Bench of this Court in its decision rendered in Bhim Sain Tyagi v. State of U. P and others, 1999 (39) ACC 321: 1999 (1) JIC 262 (All), disclosure of the general nature of the material allegations to the person against whom the notice is issued under Section 3 of the Act is sine qua non of a valid notice under Section 3 of the Act.;