B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) BY these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notices issued by the District Magistrate, Nagaur, under section 3 of the Rajasthan (Control of Gundas) Act, 1975 (herein after referred to 'as the Act'), by which the petitioners were informed that it appears to the District Magistrate, Nagaur, that the petitioners are Gundas as per clause 2 (b) (viii) of the Act and are engaged in committing criminal offences either by himself or as a member or leader of a Gang and thereby creating panic in the area. Their activities or acts in the town of Ladnu and its adjoining area are calculated to cause danger or harm to the persons or properties and there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are engaged in the commission of the acts specified in sub-clause (viii) of Clause (b) of section 2 of the Act and the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him for fear of violence to their persons or properties. The petitioners were, therefore, asked to appear before the learned District Magistrate, Nagaur, on the dates mentioned in the notices and to show cause why the order for externment of the petitioners under section 3 (3) of the Act should not be passed.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made in the notices are vague, inadequate, incomplete and inconclusive and from the allegations made in the notices, it does not appear that the petitioners are Gundas as defined in the Act. It has further been submitted that the sine qua non for initiating the proceedings against the petitioners under section 3 of the Act are missing and the materials, on the basis of which the learned District Magistrate proceeded to initiate the proceeding sand issued the notices, have not been supplied to the petitioners. It was further submitted that in some cases, mentioned in the notices, even the final Reports have beep submitted but despite this, in the impugned notices, reliance has been placed on those First Information Reports. It has, also, been agitated that the conditions precedent, as laid down in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 3 (1) of the Act are missing as no material has been produced by the prosecution. It is further submitted that mere registration of the First Information Reports is not sufficient for issuance of the notices until and unless the challan is submitted. Lastly, it is submitted that as per the Explanation appended to sub-clause (b) of section 2 of the Act, the person proceeded against must have been found on not less than three occasions to have committed the offence or breach of peace, riots or habituated to cause alarm or danger during the period of six months immediately before the commencement of the proceedings under section 3 of the Act and this condition is not satisfied in these cases and as such the impugned notices deserve to be quashed and set-aside. The learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the issuance of the impugned notices and according to him, the allegations made in the notices are specific and cannot be said, in any way, to be vague or incomplete. According to the learned Dy, Govt. Advocate, the learned District Magistrate, Nagaur, is required only to intimate the person concerned the general nature of the material allegations and these requirements have fully been complied with in these cases. The learned Dy Govt. Advocate, further, submitted that all the requirements for the issuance of the notices are present in the cases and the notices have been rightly issued. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The question which requires consideration is whether the impugned notices issued under section 3 of the Act, suffer from any infirmity? The impugned notices have been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners on two grounds : firstly, on the ground that the allegations made in the notices are vague, inadequate, incomplete or inconclusive, and secondly, that the conditions for initiating the proceedings under the Act and issuance of the notices under section 3 (3) of the Act do not exist. The first infirmity pointed-out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the notices issued by the District Magistrate, Nagaur, contain the allegations which are vague, inadequate, incomplete and inconclusive in nature and do not afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to tender their explanation.
(3.) SECTION 3 (1) of the Act only requires that the District Magistrate, by a notice in writing may inform the person concerned, the general nature of the material allegations against him in respect of Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 3 (1) of the Act. As per section 3 of the Act, it is sufficient if the notices issued under section 3 of the Act contain the general nature of the material allegations and it need not to contain the detailed particulars. The material allegations that have been given in the impugned notices are to the effect that the First Informition Reports on various dates have been registered against the petitioners at police station, Ladnu, and in some of the cases, after investigation, the challans have been submitted as the cases were found against the petitioner. The dates and the number of the First Information Reports have, also been mentioned in the notices. It has also been mentioned in the notices that the petitioners earlier also, were found involved in the criminal activities and the number of First Information Reports with dates and the cases have been given. It was, also, mentioned in the impugned notices that to the learned District Magistrate, they appear to be Gundas and their activities have caused alarm, danger or harm to the persons or property in the town of Ladnu and its adjoining area and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are engaged in the acts specified in sub-clause (viii) of Clause (b) of section 2 of the Act and the witnesses, on account of fear or violence to their person or properties, are not willing to come forward to give evidence against them. I have gone-through the notices in all these cases. The allegations contained in the impugned notices against the petitioners, in my opinion, contain the general nature of material allegations as required under section 3 of the Act made against each of the petitioners in respect of which the petitioners have been asked to tender an explanation regarding them. The notices, also, refer to the First Information Reports numbers, dates places of the occurrence, name of the police station and the details of the acts which are stated to have been committed as well as the place and the area where they said to have been committed. The persons against whom the order of extemment is proposed to be passed, while giving reply to the notices under section 3 of the Act, are required give the explanation which can be of a general nature. He can have a right to be consulted and defended by the counsel and can examine himself or may produce any other witness and/or the relevant document if he so desires, in support of his explanation. After going-through the notices, I am of the view that the allegations made in the notices, cannot be said to be vague or incomplete, but they are specific and relevant and afford a full opportunity to the petitioners to tender the explanation regarding those allegations if they so like. The next infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of which the impugned notices are sought to be quashed, is that the conditions precedent for issuing the notices are not present in these cases. The Rajasthan (Control of Gundas) Act, 1975, was enacted by the State Legislature with a view to make specific provisions for the control of suppression of the Gundas and to maintain public order. It is preventive in nature and makes provisions for preventing the breach of peace and invasion on private rights and imposes certain restrictions on the individual's personal liberty and rights. The Act authorises the District Magistrate concerned to take action under section 3 of the Act to prevent a person, who has been proved to be a criminal, from acting in a way which may be criminal and in doing so, the State has put fetters on his complete movement in the good of larger number of people. The restriction on the freedom of fewer number of people has been imposed in order to give peace and harmony to the public at large and for the safe living of the majority of the community. The Legislature has, thus, entrusted the District Magistrate of the district concerned under section 3 of the Act, after examining the facts and circumstances of each case before him, to initiate the proceedings for the externment of the person or persons of bad character with previous record of conviction (a) or with criminal persistence whose presence in the district or a part of it constitutes a menace to the safety of the persons residing there in and against whom the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence for fear of violance to their person or property. These powers under section 3 of the Act are to be exercised by the learned District Magistrate with care and caution. ;