Honble B.R. ARORA, J.—By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notices issued by the District Magistrate, Nagaur, under section 3 of the Rajasthan (Control of Gundas) Act, 1975 (herein after referred to as the Act), by which the petitioners were informed that it appears to the District Magistrate, Nagaur, that the petitioners are Gundas as per clause 2(b) (viii) of the Act and are engaged in committing criminal offences either by himself or as a member or leader of a Gang and thereby creating panic in the area. Their activities or acts in the town of Ladnu and its adjoining area are calculated to cause danger or harm to the persons or properties and there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are engaged in the commission of the acts specified in sub-clause (viii) of Clause (b) of section 2 of the Act and the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him for fear of violence to their persons or properties. The petitioners were, therefore, asked to appear before the learned District Magistrate, Nagaur, on the dates mentioned in the notices and to show cause why the order for externment of the petitioners under section 3(3) of the Act should not be passed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made in the notices are vague, inadequate, incomplete and inconclusive and from the allegations made in the notices, it does not appear that the petitioners are Gundas as defined in the Act. It has further been submitted that the sine qua non for initiating the proceedings against the petitioners under section 3 of the Act are missing and the materials, on the basis of which the learned District Magistrate proceeded to initiate the proceeding sand issued the notices, have not been supplied to the petitioners. It was further submitted that in some cases, mentioned in the notices, even the final Reports have beep submitted but despite this, in the impugned notices, reliance has been placed on those First Information Reports. It has, also, been agitated that the conditions precedent, as laid down in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 3 (1) of the Act are missing as no material has been produced by the prosecution. It is further submitted that mere registration of the First Information Reports is not sufficient for issuance of the notices until and unless the challan is submitted. Lastly, it is submitted that as per the Explanation appended to sub-clause (b) of section 2 of the Act, the person proceeded against must have been found on not less than three occasions to have committed the offence or breach of peace, riots or habituated to cause alarm or danger during the period of six months immediately before the commencement of the proceedings under section 3 of the Act and this condition is not satisfied in these cases and as such the impugned notices deserve to be quashed and set-aside. The learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the issuance of the impugned notices and according to him, the allegations made in the notices are specific and cannot be said, in any way, to be vague or incomplete. According to the learned Dy, Govt. Advocate, the learned District Magistrate, Nagaur, is required only to intimate the person concerned the general nature of the material allegations and these requirements have fully been complied with in these cases. The learned Dy Govt. Advocate, further, submitted that all the requirements for the issuance of the notices are present in the cases and the notices have been rightly issued.

4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The question which requires consideration is whether the impugned notices issued under section 3 of the Act, suffer from any infirmity? The impugned notices have been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners on two grounds

Click Here to Read the rest of this document