A notice issued under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, must contain the general nature of material allegations against the person concerned. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the notice and subsequent proceedings illegal.

( 1 ) THE District Magistrate, Ballia, issued a notice to the petitioner on 10-10-1979 under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 directing; him to appear before him on 12-11-1978 at 10 A. M, and to give his explanation in writing as to why an order should not be passed against him under Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner instead of appearing before the District Magistrate filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court challenging validity of the notice. While issuing notice of the writ petition to the respondents, a Division Bench of this court observed that the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Harsh Narain v. District magistrate 1972 All LJ 762 relied on by the counsel for the petitioner in assailing the validity of the notice required reconsideration in view of. the Supreme Cpurt decision in State of Gujarat v. Mehbub Khan AIR 1968 SC 1468 : 1969 Cri LJ 26. In this view the Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench and that is how this petition has been placed beifore us.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner urged that the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 3 of the Control of Goondas Act, 1970, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is illegal as it does hot contain "general nature of material allegations" against the petitioner in respect of the matters set forth in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sections 3 (1) of the Act, as a result of which the petitioner is denied a reasonable opportunity of tendering explanation. He further urged that the Act piyovides slender safeguards to a person against whom notice is issued under Section 3 and as such it is imperative that the statutory provision is strictly complied with. Since the notice is invalid for non-compliance of statutory provisions, the entire proceedings under the Act are rendered illegal and void. He placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in harsh Narains case 1972 All LJ 762 (supra) where an order passed under Section 3 of the Act externing the petitioner of that case from the district of Allahabad for a period of six months was auashed on the ground that the notice issued under Section 3 (1) did not set out general nature of material allegations. Learned Standing Counsel has, on the other hand, urged that the impugned notice is in accordance with Section 3 (1) of the Act as it sets out "general nature of material allegations" against the petitioner. The nature of the proceedings under the Act and the purpose of the order which may ultimately be Dassed do not contemplate a judicial trial or prosecution and it is not necessary to give details or particulars of the matters set out in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 3 of the Act. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in State of Gujarat v. Mehbub Khan 1969 Cri TJ 26 (supra) he urged that the view taken by this Court in Harsh narains case is not a good law.

( 3 ) BEFORE we consider the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we think it necessary to have a brief appraisal of the scheme of the Act. The Act, as its preamble shows was enacted by the legislature for the control and suppression of Goondas with a view to maintaining of public order. The Act confers power on the District Magistrate or any other person specially authorised in that behalf by the State Government to extern a Goonda outside the district or part thereof for a period not exceeding six months. Goonda as defined by Section 2 (b) of the Act, means a person who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of. offences punishable under Chaps. XVI, XVII or xxii of the Indian Penal Code, or has been convicted under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 or has been convicted not less than three times under the U. P. Excise Act, 1910 or is generally reputed to be a person who U desperate and dangerous to the community, I