Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Tewari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents and perused the impugned order and the material brought on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner, Yasheen, with a prayer for quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 30.04.2021 issued by the opposite party No.2-Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lakhimpur Kheri, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 in Case No. D-202110430000878 Police Station Pasgawan, District Kheri, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned notice dated 30.04.2021 has been issued to the petitioner only on the basis of two F.I.Rs. which were lodged against the petitioner bearing Case Crime No. 239 of 2015, under Section 60 of the Excise Act and Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 272 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 202 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 272 I.P.C. and Section 60(2), 72 of the Excise Act, at Police Station Pasgawan, District Lucknow and beat information report no. 13 dated 27.03.2021, which are highly improbable and illegal as in both the criminal cases, the petitioner was enlarged on bail but the impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner after about three years from the date of lodging the aforesaid criminal cases. He further submits that Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 shall be applicable only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is engaged or about to engage in commission of offence in the District or any part thereof. He further submits that Section 2(b)(i) clearly states that: "Goonda" 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 an offence punishable under Section 153 or Section 153-B or Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, or Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the said Code".
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no evidence is coming forth that the petitioner is running a gang and, therefore, impugned notice issued under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 is illegal and is issued without application of mind.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned notice and submitted that it is always open for the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice before competent authority. He further submits that petitioner is indulged in criminal activity and there is every possibility that he is running a gang and on account of his fear and terror, no one has come forward to give any complaint or evidence against him, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned notice and also considering the gravity of offence levelled against the petitioner, it transpires from the impugned show cause notice that before issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, the Additional District Magistrate has gone through the report of the the police, which shows that the movement of the petitioner and his acts are causing and are calculated to cause alarm, danger and harm to person or property in various police station of district Kheri; his engage or likely to engage in the commission of offence punishable under Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code; and on account of fear and safety of life or property, no person has come forward to lodge F.I.R. against the petitioner nor anyone has gone to give evidence against him in the Court. The Additional District Magistrate, after going through the aforesaid report of the police, opined that two criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner and he is indulged in criminal activities since 2015 and continued and dangerous so as to render him being at large in Kheri district or in any part thereof is hazardous to the community and further the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against him by reasons of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. Therefore, the Additional District Magistrate has reasoned to believe that the petitioner is likely to engage himself in such commission of offences. In these backgrounds, the Additional District Magistrate has issued the impugned show cause notice.
From the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that the Additional District Magistrate, after having sufficient reasons to believe that the act and the movement of the petitioner is hazardeous to the public at large in Kheri district, has issued the impugned show cause notice, requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why order under Section 3 (3) of Act, 1970 cannot be passed against him but the petitioner, instead of replying to the said show cause notice, has approached this Court straightaway under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant writ petition, which, from the facts and circumstance of the case, is not maintainable as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer State Housing Board vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh, AIR 1996 SC 691, Jainendra @ Chhotu Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in 2007 (57) ACC 791, Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Vs. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd. : (2020) 12 SCC 572 and also the judgment and order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.869 of 2018; Pramod Katyayn vs. State of U.P. and others.
Moreso, learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy us that prior to issuing the impugned show cause notice, the Additional District Magistrate was not having sufficient reasons to believe that the act and movement of the petitioner is hazardous to the public at large in Kheri district.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, it shall be open for the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice before the competent authority.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Ajit/-