BALLABH CHAUBEY Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE FINANCE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A large number of petitions have been filed challenging the notices issued by the District Magistrate under Section 3(1) of U.P.Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Two such petitions in which leading arguments have been advanced are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The only ground on which the validity of the notice has been assailed is that the general nature of the material allegations against the petitioner in respect of clauses (a)(b) and (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act have not been mentioned therein and therefore, in view of the Full Bench decision in Ramji Pandey v. State of U.P.1982 Cri LJ 1083 : (1981 All LJ 897) the same was illegal. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioners have been merely served with a notice and they have yet to appear before the District Magistrate in response to the same and, therefore, the writ petition at this stage is premature and should not be entertained. It may be pointed out that challenge to notice is not based upon want of jurisdiction.

(3.) In order to examine the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties, it will be convenient to briefly refer to the provisions of the Act. Sub-Section (b) of Section 2 defines 'Goonda' and means a person who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII or XXII of the Indian Penal Code or has been convicted under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, or has been convicted not less than thrice under the U.P.Excise Act or is generally reputed to be a person who is desperately dangerous to the community. Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 provides that wherever it appears to the District Magistrate that any person is a Goonda and that his movements or acts in the district or any part thereof are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, or harm to persons or property, or that there are reason-able grounds for believing that he is engaged or about to engage in the District or any part thereof in the commission of any offence punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Penal Code or under Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act or under the U.P.Excise Act or in the abetment of any such offence and that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him by reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of their persons or property, the District Magistrate shall by notice in writing inform him of the general nature of the material allegations against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 provides that the person against whom an order is proposed to be made shall have the right to consult and be defended by a counsel of his choice and shall be given a reasonable opportunity of examining himself and also of examining any other witnesses that he may wish to produce in support of his explanation. Sub-Section (3) provides that the District Magistrate on being satisfied that the conditions specified in clauses (a)(b) and (c) of Sub-Section (1) exist may by order in writing direct him to remove himself outside the district or part as the case may be and within such time as may be specified in the order and to desist from entering the District or specified part thereof until the expiry of such period not exceeding six months. The order may also require such persons to notify his movement or to report himself to such authority or person as may be specified and prohibit or restrict possession or use by him any such article as may be specified and to conduct himself in such manner as may be specified in the order until the expiry of such period but not exceeding six months. Section 4 empowers the District Magistrate to permit any person in respect of whom an order has been made under Section 3 to enter or return for a temporary period into or to the area from which he was directed to remove himself. Section 6 provides for an appeal against the order of the District Magistrate to the Commissioner who may either confirm the order with or without modification or set it aside and may pending disposal of the appeal stay the operation of the order. Section 9 provides that the District Magistrate or the Commissioner may at any time rescind an order made under Section 3 whether or not such order was confirmed on appeal under Section 6.