( 1 ) A large number of petitions have been filed challenging the notices issued by the District Magistrate under Section 3 (1) of U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Two such petitions in which leading arguments have been advanced are being disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) THE only ground on which the validity of the notice has been assailed is that the general nature of the material allegations against the petitioner in respect of clauses (a) (b) and (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act have not been mentioned therein and therefore, in view of the Full Bench decision in Ramji Pandey v. State of U. P. 1982 Cri LJ 1083 : (1981 All LJ 897) the same was illegal. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioners have been merely served with a notice and they have yet to appear before the District Magistrate in response to the same and, therefore, the writ petition at this stage is premature and should not be entertained. It may be pointed out that challenge to notice is not based upon want of jurisdiction.

( 3 ) IN order to examine the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties, it will be convenient