VINEET KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. Malaviya, J. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 16. 10. 1996 issued to him by A. D. M. Ad ministration, Karvi, district Banda under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goonda Act 1970 (hereinafter referred to as Act ).

(2.) SRI Jagdish Singh Sengar says that the impugned notice does not confirm to the requirements as were set up by the judg ment of the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Ji Pandey v. State of U. P, 1981 Criminal Law Journal page 1983. His contention is that the "general nature of material allegations" as contemplated under Section 3 (1) (d) have not been provided to the petitioner by the said notice.

(3.) THEREFORE, Ram Ji Pandey's case (supra) makes it clear that the notice need not contain details or particulars but should provide general statement of facts. In other words all that is needed by the notice is that the person concerned understands as to on what grounds the district authority proposes to take action against him. Once we examine the present notice we are satis fied that the "general nature of material allegations" as supplied to the petitioner under the said notice quite clearly convey the grounds on which the action against the petitioner has been proposed.