1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 19th January, 2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sawaimadhopur under the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 (for short “the Act of 1975”).

2. Learned counsel submits that impugned order herein has been passed in a cyclostyle manner. It is ignoring that petitioner does not fall in the definition of “Goonda”, as given under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1975.

3. It is stated though an order has been passed against the petitioner but in the operative portion, name of Purshottam Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh has been given. It shows non-application of mind of the authority concerned, accordingly, impugned order deserves to be set aside. The Explanation appended to the definition of “Goonda”, the word “habitual or “habituated” has been referred. As per Explanation, the word “habitual or “habituated” would mean commission of offence given under sub-clauses (i), (vi), (vii) or (viii) not less than three occasions in previous six years. The petitioner has not committed any offence within a period of six months on three different occasions. In view of the above also, impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

5. The challenge to the order dated 19th January, 2018 has been made in reference to Section 2(b) defining the word “Goonda” and Section 3 of the Act of 1975. For ready reference, both the provisions are quoted hereunder:

“(b) "Goonda" means a person who:

(i) either by himself or as a member or leader or gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences punishable under Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860) or under sections 290 to 294 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860; or

(ii) has been convicted under Suppression of a Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act No. 104 of 1956); or

(iii) has been convicted not less than twice under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (Rajasthan Act No. 11 of 1950); or

(iv) has been convicted not Less than twice under the Opium Act, 1878 (Central Act No. 1 of 1878); or

(v) has been convicted not less than twice under Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 (Rajasthan Ordinance No.48 of 1949);

or

(vi) has been found habitually passing indecent remarks to or teasing women or girls; or

(vii) has been found habitual in intimidation of law-abiding people by acts of violence or by show of force; or

(viii) is habituated to commit affray or breach of peace, riot, or who is habituated to make forcible collection of subscription or threatening people for illegal pecuniary gain for himself or for others, or who is habituated to cause alarm, danger, or harm to persons or property.

EXPLANATION-The word 'habitual' or 'habituated' wherever used in relation to a person in this clause means a person, who during a period within six months immediately preceding the commencement of an action under section 3, has been found on not less than three occasions to have committed the offences or acts, as the case may be, referred to in sub-clauses (i), (vi), (vii) or (viii).”

“3. Externment etc., of Goondas-(1) Where it appears to the District Magistrate-

(a) that any person is a goonda; and

(b)(i) that is movements or acts in the district or any part there of are causing, or are calculated to cause alarm danger or harm to persons or property; or (ii) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is engaged or about to engage, in the district or any part thereof, in the commission or abetment of any offence or act specified in sub-clauses (i) to (viii) of clause (b) of section 2; and

(c)that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property; the District Magistrate shall by notice in writing inform him of the general nature of the material allegations against hi