BABLOO AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Mohit Dwivedi, holding brief of Sri Sanjay Pandey, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri Verma, learned A.G.A. Challenge in this petition is the notices dated 17.3.2009 and 23.3.2009 issued by the opposite party no. 2 as contained in annexure no. 1 to 3. By means of the impugned notices petitioners have been called upon to submit their response in respect to the cases of the charge as mentioned in the notice for passing appropriate final orders under the provisions of the U. P. Control of Goonda Act. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that allegations as required under the Act is lacking in the notice and, therefore, impugned notices are to be quashed. Counsel for the petitioners submits that by merely mentioning case crime number and section, which are referred in the impugned notices, that cannot be treated to be sufficient compliance as has been interpreted by this Court in series of judgments. To support the aforesaid, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court given in the case of Bhim Sen Tyagi Vs. State of U. P. reported in 1999 Luknow Criminal Report Vol. 18 289 and the case of Ramji Pandey Vs. State of U. P. reported in 1981 A.C.J. 385. In the last reliance has been placed on a recent judgment of this Court given in the case of Shamsad Ali Vs. State of U. P. and another reported in 2003 (21) L.C.D. 1466 in which by referring to the decisions as noted above this Court quashed the notices at the initial stage without calling upon the respondents to file counter affidavit and liberty was given to the State to issue fresh notices, if it is so adviseable giving the complete particulars as required. On these facts learned A.G.A. rightly submits that keeping the matter pending and calling the counter affidavit will be a futile exercise and that will detain the finality of the things and thus this petition needs to be disposed of at this stage itself. Accordingly without going into the merits of the notices issued against the petitioners and without making any comment this petition is to succeed. Accordingly impugned notices as issued against the petitioners are hereby quashed. The State authorities are always at liberty to issue fresh notice if on the facts it is so desired by following the mandate and the law laid down by this Court.