MUSHARRAF Vs. STATE OF U.P.AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Manoj Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA appearing for the State respondents and have perused the record. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that in response to a notice issued to him under Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter after referred to as the Act), the petitioner submitted his reply. After considering the reply of the petitioner as also the evidence adduced by him and hearing his counsel, the District Magistrate discharged the notice after holding that the petitioner does not appear to be having the characteristics of 'Goonda' as defined under the Act. By the said order, bail bonds have also been cancelled and sureties were discharged. However, by the same order dated 26.2.2011, which has been passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Budaun, a direction has been given that the petitioner shall report at the nearest police station every 15 days for the next six months. It is this latter part of the aforesaid order dated 26.2.2011 by which the petitioner is aggrieved.

(3.) A plain reading of Section 3 of the Act would go to show that it is only after being satisfied that the conditions specified in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 exist that the District Magistrate can issue any direction regarding externment or impose any restriction with regard to the movement of the petitioner as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act.