GIRIDHAR MALAVIYA AND B. K. SHARMA, JJ.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notice dated 26. 5. 1997 issued by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Allahabad under Section 3 (1) of the u. P. Control of Gundas Act. The petitioners contention is that the said notice is not in accordance with law as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in case of Ramji Pandey v. State of U. P. , 1981 Cr LJ 1083. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate has raised a preliminary objection that a writ petition against the notice issued to the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the recent Division Bench judgment of the Court in Ballabh Chaubey v. Additional District Magistrate, Mathura and others. Writ Petition No. 2354 of 1996 connected with Rajesh Pal v. Additional District Magistrate, Varanasi and others, Criminal Misc. Writ petition No. J816 of 1996, since reported in 1997 ACrr 387. When this preliminary objection was raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner took time to study the said Division Bench judgment. Meanwhile many writ petitions were filed challenging similar notices under Section 3 (1) of U. P. Control of Gundas Act. All these petitions were linked with this petition so that if any other counsel may wish to address this Court on the question of maintainability of writ petitions against such notices under Section 3 (1), U. P. Control of Gundas Act, they may also address the court. That is how the matter is before us today.

( 2 ) WE have heard Sri V. M. Zaidt learned counsel for the petitioner. The argument of Mr. Zaidi has been adopted by other counsel of similar writ petitions.

( 3 ) SRI Zaidi contended that the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Baliabh Chaubey (supra) is not correct as the learned Judges of Division Bench misread the case of Raja suknnandan v. State, AIR 1972 All 498 and Kabir Chawla v. State of U. P. , 1994 SCC (Cr) 577. We have gone through these two cases.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to Sri V. M. Zaidi the observation of the Division Bench in Baliabh Chaubeys case that the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Raja Siikh Nandans case had refused to consider the illegality of the notice and that the Supreme Court in Kabir Chawlas case declined to go into the question of validity of notice is not correct inasmuch as in none of these two cases, the validity of the form of notice was even challenged by asserting that the notice lacked in the material particulars. His contention is that in both these judgments, observation of the Court regarding the validity of the notice under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Control of Gundas Act was confined to the merit of the allegations in the notice. The contention, therefore, is that these two cases relied upon by the Division Bench in Baliabh Chaubeys case were of no help as they did not consider the question of validity of notice as had been done by Full Bench in Kamji Pandeys case.

( 5 ) ALTHOUGH the contention of Sri Zaidi to some extent is correct that in Raja Sukhnandans case as also in Kabir Chawlas case, there was no challenge to the form of the notice but the Division bench in the case of Baliabh Chaubey has not at all said that in Raja Sukhnandans case or in kobir Chawlas case, the validity of the form of notice was under challenge. The Division Bench was considering the question of validity of notice in broader sense. Moreover, in Raja Sukh nandans case, the validity of the notice was also challenged on the point that from the general nature of material allegations in support of sub-section (1) of Section 3, the District Magistrate could not be satisfied and he could not reach the conclusion that condition of clauses (a), (b) and (c) had been satisfied. This in substance is the same thing which goes to suggest that on the general nature of material allegation in the notice in support of clauses (a), (b) and (c), the petitioner could no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document