Notices issued under Section 3(1) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Ordinance, 1979, must contain material allegations against the person concerned in respect of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 3(1) of the Ordinance, and a person who has challenged the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate in a show cause petition can still challenge the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate before the final order is passed.

V.Mishra, J.

1. These two writ applications have been taken up together as the points involved are the same. Twice before they were dismissed for default but were later restored.

2. These are applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notices issued by the District Magistrate of Saran on 4-5-1979 u/s. 3(1) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Ordinance 1979 (anuexure 1 to each of the petition). The main ground is that the notices are vague and they do not give sufficient details to the petitioners so as to enable them to submit any show cause. They are also said to have been mechanically issued without the District Magistrate having applied his mind to them. In this view of the matter, the notices are said to be without jurisdiction and as such liable to be quashed.

3. Counter affidavits have been filed in each case by the State in which it has been tried to establish that the petitioners have got criminal history. The notices are claimed to be quite in accordance with the Bihar Control of Crimes Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). It is also said that show cause has been filed in each case which has not yet been proved.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners took us through the notices contained in annexure 1 to show that they are more or less only repetition of the provisions contained in Sec.3 of the Ordinance. Specific instances to enable the petitioners to give an effective show cause are absolutely lacking. They have been described as antisocial elements" but it was contended that they do not come within the definition of "anti social element" contained in Sec.2 (c) of the Ordinance. They are said to have been accused in cases under Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959. The definition of "anti social element" given in Sec.2 (e) of the Ordinance applies only in respect of persons who have been convicted under these sections and does not apply to persons, who are only standing trial for the offences under those sections. There is no dispute on this point. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also showed the notice that has been served on Yogendra Rai, one of the petitioners here. That is a cyclostyled copy in which only the name and address have been filed in. This is enough to show that the notices have been issued mechanically without the District Magistrate having applied his mind to individual cases. In course of argument, therefore, the learned Counsel for the State, Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, conceded that the notices in both the cases are too vague to enable the petitioners to meet the charges against them. The fact that they have been mechanically issued could also not be contested in view of the original served on Yogendra Rai which is nothing but a copy of the cyclostyled from (kept on record).

5. The learned Counsel for the State, however, raised only one point, and that was that these petitioners had filed their respective show cause petitions before the District Magistrate in pursuance to the notices, and as such they are now debarred from challenging those notices in the Court. In support of his plea he relied upon the case of Lawrence Joachim Joseph Dsouza V/s. The State of Bombay -- . That is a case on Section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act. The allegation against Dsouza was of espionage in the affairs of Goa. The High Court of Bombay had taken the view that the grounds could not be considered to be vague. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court also agreed with the High Court. That case therefore has no application in the cases under consideration before us. The State counsel also referred to an unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Krishna Singh V/s. The State of Bihar, Cr.W.J.C. No. 33 of 1980 disposed of on 22.04.1980. That was also a case where a notice, issued under Sub-section (1) of Sec.3 of the Ordinance, had been challenged and the petitioner had filed his show cau