NISAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.5.2010 passed by opposite party no.2 in Appeal Nos. 12,15,16,14 and 13 of 2010 (Annexures 1,2,3,4 and 5 to the writ petition) and the order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the opposite party no.3 in Case Nos. 169, 171, 170, 172 and 173 of 2009 (Annexures 6,7,8,9 and 10, respectively to the writ petition) under Sections 3 of the U.P. Control of Gundas Act (in short 'the Act'). Further, to issue, writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus that the order passed by the opposite party no.3 dated 29.4.2010 in the aforesaid case and the order dated 24.5.2010 passed by the opposite party no.2 in the aforesaid appeals be not given effect to till the decision of this writ petition.

(2.) Heard Shri Mohd. Yusuf, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA appearing for the State-respondents.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that show-cause notices issued against the petitioners suffer from the vice of total application of mind. It was next submitted that neither the petitioners have criminal antecedents nor they have been involved in any anti-social activity, except the solitary case shown in the notice. The show-cause notices were issued against the petitioners only on the ground of their involvement in a solitary case. Thus, the petitioners do not come within the meaning of Goonda as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. The petitioners filed their objections to the show cause notices but the respondent no.3 rejected the same and passed the impugned order. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners filed appeal before the Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur (respondent no.2), which was also dismissed affirming the order passed by the respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Imran alias Abdul Qudus Khan Versus State of U. P. and others,2000 Supp ACC 171 (HC) has taken the view that for a person to be a "Goonda" under sub-clause (i) (b) of the Act is to be a person who has to his credit repeated / persistent overt acts not isolated and individual act and in view of the above, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Rajan Mittal vs. State of U.P. And others, 2008 62 AllCriC 622.