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

1997 Supreme(All) 1138

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.R.K. Trivedi, M. Katju, JJ.
Ram Singh – Appellants
Versus
District Magistrate, Fatehpur - Respondents
C.M.W.P. 31048 Of 1997
Decided on : Sep 23, 1997

Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
K.K. Dwivedi

A writ petition shall not lie against a show-cause notice under the U. P. Control of Goondas Act.

Headnote:

Show Cause Notice - U. P. Control of Goondas Act - The court held that a writ petition against a show-cause notice under the U. P. Control of Goondas Act will not be maintainable, in line with the view expressed by a Division Bench and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition challenging the show cause notice served on them under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the writ petition, citing the view expressed by a Division Bench and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a writ petition shall not lie against a show-cause notice.

Issues: Challenge to show cause notice under U. P. Control of Goondas Act

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition against a show-cause notice under the U. P. Control of Goondas Act will not be maintainable.

Final Decision: The writ petition is rejected.

Judgment :

R.R.K. Trivedi and M. Katju, JJ.

1. HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

2. THIS petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 19.6.1997 served on the petitioner under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970.

A Division Bench of this Court in Ballabh Chaubey v. A.D.M., Mathura, Writ Petition No. 2954 of 1996 and Rajesh Pal v. A.D.M., Varanasi, Writ Petition No. 1818 of 1996, has already taken the view vide their judgment dated 22.1.1997 that a writ petition against a show-cause notice under the U. P. Control of Goondas Act will not be maintainable. The Division Bench has distinguished the judgment of the Full Bench In the case of Ram Ji Pandey v. State of U. P., 1981 ALJ 897, and has held that in Ramji Pandey's case the question whether a writ petition against a show-cause notice should be entertained was not considered.

3. WE are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Ballabh Chaubey's case (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in Executive Engineer v. R. K. Singh, JT1995 (8) SC 331, that a writ petition shall not lie against a show-cause notice. WE also hold that no writ petition should be entertained against a show-cause notice issued under the U. P. Control of Goondas Act. The petitioner has a remedy of filing a reply to the show-cause.

4. IN the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is rejected.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top