The petitioner challenges the notice under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, dated 16-11-91 issued against him (Annexure-1 to the petition ).

2. Strong reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the case of Ram Pandey v. State of U. P. & others, 1981 Cr. L. J. 1083 (FB ). Learned Counsel for the State, however, made a reference to the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1997 Judicial Interpretation on Crimes, page 519 - (Ballabh Chaubey v. Additional District Magistrate (Finance), Mathura and others):-

"the judgment of the Full Bench shows that the question whether the writ petition should be entertained against the notice, was not considered at all. The only question which was canvassed and was considered by the Bench was whether the notice was in accordance with the requirement of Section 3 of the Act. . . The Full Bench having not considered the question of maintainability of the writ

petition at the stage of notice, the decision rendered by it cannot be held to be an authority or binding precedent for holding the writ petition to be maintainable. "

3. The only point of difference as noted in this decision is p