AJMERUDDIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the show cause notices each dated 23. 5. 2008 issued separately to the petitioners namely Ajmer Uddin, Dashai and Laddu Ansari under the U. P. Control of Goondas Act by respondent no. 2 i. e. District Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

(2.) FROM a perusal of the notices, it would transpire that the notices have been issued listing charges firstly that the petitioners are Goondas and have committed offences defined under Chapters 16, 17 and 22 I. P. C. secondly, the charge against the petitioners is that either no one dares to lodge the F. I. R. or give the evidence against them. As many as three cases have been cited against each of the petitioners to prop up the invocation of the provisions of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act against them. On the basis of alleged criminal history as embodied in the notice, the action was initiated under section (3) of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act 1970 spelling out the ground that the activities of the petitioners are causing alarm and danger to person or property or that there are reasonable grounds for believing that that such persons are engaged or are about to be engaged in commission of enumerated offences or in the abetment of any such offence or are so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large hazardous to the community.

(3.) THE main brunt of the submissions advanced across the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is complete non application of mind in issuing notice and that the notice has been issued in a routine manner inasmuch as there is long interregnum between the alleged commission of the crime which relates back to the year 2004 and the show cause notices which have been issued in the year 2008. It is further argued that the District Magistrate recited in the notice that the petitioners are indulging in offences punishable under Chapter 16, 17 and 22 of the Act but the petitioners were never involved in the offences listed in the Chapters aforestated. Another submission advanced across the bar is that the notices issued against the petitioners militate against the relevant provision of the Control of Goondas Act inasmuch as the same do not contain "general nature of material allegations". The learned counsel also placed credence on a decision in Baldeo Singh v. State of U. P. Reported in 1978 (15) ACC 345 stating that the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case and that the petitioners are entitled to reliefs prayed for in the light of the ratio flowing from the said decision. We have been taken through the said decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. From a perusal of the said decision, it would transpire that the incidents complained of were of remote past i. e of the year 1972, and 1973 and Jan 1974 and the ultimate order was passed on Dec 8,1977 i. e. more than three years even after the issue of the notice and regard being had to the facts in that case, the Court observed that the circumstances may have changed the man may have changed his habits; and the need of prevention may have disappeared and ultimately converged to the conclusion that the long eclipse must be deemed to have snapped the chain between the offending acts and the order of externment. Yet another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the one rendered in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 6140 of 2002 decided on 5. 5. 2003 Sushil Kumar Yadav v. Addl. District Magistrate and others. The said order was passed in the context of facts that the cases shown in the earlier notice were also taken into reckoning in the subsequent notice issued to the petitioner. The crux was that the notice had been issued on stale grounds. The learned counsel also relied upon oft-quoted B. S. Tyagi's case in order to bolster up his contentions.