Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made to the notice dated 09.06.2010 issued by the respondent no.2 under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the notice issued by the Addl. District Magistrate (Admin.) Allahabad does not contain the material allegations on the basis of which he formed his opinion as such it does not meet the requirement and is not in accordance with Section 3(1) of the Act. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on two Full Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Ramji Pandey v State of U.P., 1981 Crl.L.J. 1083, Bhim Sien Tyagi v State of U.P., 1999 (2) JIC 192 (Alld.) and the Division Bench in the case of Raj Kumar Dubey v State of U.P. and others, [2009(3) ADJ 361 (DB)].
Learned AGA has, however, tried to justify the impugned notice by stating that in the notice subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the Addl. District Magistrate (Admin.) Allahabad on the ground the activities of the petitioner is dangerous to the general public and there is reason to believe that he can commit any offence under Part-16, 17 & 22 I.P.C. and thus the notice meets the requirement of Section 3(1) of the Act.
We have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
In the case of Ramji Pandey (Supra) it has been held by the Full Bench that although the expression "material allegations" has not been defined by that Act, according to the dictionary meanings, the word "material" means "important and essential", "of significance". The word "allegation" means statement or assertion of facts. Thus the notice under Section 3(1) should contain the essential assertions of facts in relation to the matters set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. It need not refer to any evidence or other particulars or details.
A bare perusal of the impugned notice filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition goes to show that case crime number and sections under which the petitioner has been challaned have been mentioned but the assertions of the broad particulars which are required to be mentioned with regard to each of the cases, have not been mentioned in the notice.
We do not find that the impugned notice conforms to the requirement of Section 3(1) of the Act inasmuch as it does not contain the material allegations even of general nature on the basis of which the Addl. District Magistrate (Admin.) Allahabad can be said to have formed his opinion.
The law on the point being settled by two Full Bench decisions, referred to above, the impugned notice does not conform to the mandatory provision of Section 3(1) of the Act and cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.
The petition stands allowed.
It shall, however, be open to the Addl. District Magistrate (Admin.) Allahabad to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 16.6.2010 SS