FAIYAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. P. Semwal, J. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the notice dated 3-10-1991 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the petitioner directing him to appear before him on 24-2-1992 at 10 a. m.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition, are that proceedings under the Act were initiated against the petitioner on the police report dated 1-4-1991 and a notice under Section 3 of the Act was sent to the police on 3-10-1991 for service on the petitioner which was not received back after service. THE Addl. District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar then sent letters as well as D. O. letters to the Superintendent of Police (City) for returning the notice after service. Even the notice was not returned, nor any report was sent by the police in this regard. THE Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar then on 24-2-1992 passed an order that the police is not keen to pursue the matter and has failed to serve the notice, hence there is no alternative but to consign the file (Annexure No. 2 to the petition ). THE Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar thus consigned the file of Case No. 42 of 91-State v. Faiyaz Ahmad, and sent a copy of the said order to the Superintendent of Police (City ).

(3.) IT is thus clear that any person who falls within one or more aforesaid clauses will be a "goondas" within the meaning of this Act.