BRAHMA PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated 10.5.2010 issued by the opposite party No. 3, the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), district Raibareilly to the Petitioner under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Gobndas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) We have heard the arguments at length advanced by Sri Lakshaman Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Umesh Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State as well as perused the relevant documents on record.

(3.) The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the opposite party No. 3, the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), district Raibareilly exercising the power of District Magistrate, Raibareilly issued a notice to the Petitioner under Section 3 of the Act to appear and show cause as to why an order under Section 3 of the Act be not passed against him. The learned Counsel submits that the Section 3 of the Act lays down the provision for externment of goondas. Section 3(1)(a) (b) (i) (ii) and (c) of the Act provide for issuing a show cause notice by the District Magistrate to the person who is to be declared as goonda and order of externment is to be passed against him containing facts mentioned therein. The notice further provides that it will contain the general nature of material allegations against the person who is proposed to be declared as goonda and against whom externment order is to be passed. In this case the impugned notice issued by the District Magistrate although contains a list of as many as 11 (eleven) cases but the general nature of material allegations are lacking therein which is essentially required to be mentioned therein. The learned Counsel submits that only list of cases mentioned in the notice will not be sufficient to amount that the general nature of material allegations have been mentioned in the notice. The learned Counsel further submits that the Additional District Magistrate was further required to record his satisfaction in the impugned notice that he was satisfied on the facts as required under Section 3(1)(a) (b) (i) (ii) and (c) of the Act that the Petitioner was goonda. But he has not recorded his satisfaction in the impugned notice, therefore, the impugned notice issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), district Ralbareilly is illegal and liable to be quahsed. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of his argument has placed reliance on cases of Ramji Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1981 7 AllLR 401. decided by Full Bench (consisting of three Hon'ble Judges) of Allahabad High Court, Bhim Singh Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Ors.,1999 2 AllCriR 1286, decided by Full Bench (consisting of five Hon'ble Judges) of Allahabad High Court and Rajkumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2009 1 AllCriR 1166, decided by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court.