SHISHUPAL YADAV Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by means of present Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the notice dated 24.04.2014, issued by the respondent no. 1 under Section 3 U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 on the recommendation of the S.S.P. Udham Singh Nagar alongwith Inspector Incharge Kotwali, Rudrapur, and proceedings in consequence thereof registered as case no. 51/28 of 2014, pending in the Court of District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner stated that one such notice was already issued to the petitioner on 13.01.2012 (Annexure -3). Petitioner responded to such notice and the proceedings in respect thereof are pending before the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. Learned counsel representing State does not object to such facts.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further contended that if his response to the earlier notice fails, and his contention is not accepted by the District Magistrate, then the petitioner will face externment, as is provided under Section 3 of the said Act. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if reply to second notice issued to him fails and his response is not accepted by the District Magistrate, then the punishment will be the same, i.e., externment. When the case relating to first notice is pending, why should the District Magistrate issue fresh notice under the same Act and in respect of almost same criminal cases?