SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(All) 266

S.K.PHAUJDAR, J.C.MISHRA
BHIM SAIN TYAGI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
RAM SHIL SHARMA,

Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature vfcertiorari tor quashing a notice dated 23-1-98 issued by the Apar Zila Magistrate (Addl. District Magis trate), Mahamaya Nagar, under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. Amongst other grounds, it was stated that the Addl. District Magistrate (for short, ADM) could not have issued the notice. It was further stated that the notice was bad in terms of decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ratnji Pandey (as reported in 1981 Crl. L. J. 1983 ). The learned AGA took up a preliminary objec tion stating that the notice was merely for showing cause and the petitioner should have approached the authority who issued the notice and should have raised all the points regarding illegality of the notice and the grounds mentioned there in and in view of the existence of an alternative remedy, the present writ petition was not maintainable.

2. So far the first point is concerned, papers were placed before us by the learned AGA to show that the ADM was specifically empowered by the State Government in this behalf. The definition of the term district Magistrate as given in the U. P Control of

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top