Hon’ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.5.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut, in Appeal No. 36 of 2015-16 whereby confirming the order dated 7.12.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Baghpat, in Computer Case No. D2015110800401, State v. Sudhir, arising out of the report under Section 3/4 of the U.P. Control of Gundas Act, (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’) P.S. Chhaprauli, District Baghpat.

2. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State, which is the only opposite party. Perused the record.

3. Learned AGA has submitted that since only a legal question is involved in the present writ petition, there is no need to file counter-affidavit on the part of State and the matter be decided in the wake of the settled legal position.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent, he is not a habitual offender and he has no criminal history. However, due to dirty village politics a false and frivolous story was cooked up and he was involved in Case Crime No. 139 of 2015, under Sections 323, 352, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Chhprauli, District Baghpat. It is further contended that in the aforesaid case the petitioner has already been acquitted by judgment and order dated 31.5.2016 passed by the A.C.J.M./F.T.C., Baghpat, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It is next submitted that apart from the aforesaid case, no other case has ever been registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel has contended that the provisions of U.P. Control of Gundas Act, 1970 are not attracted, if there is only a solitary case against the accused. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar and others, 1984 (3) SCC 40 and the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court, rendered in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6198 of 2015, Binni @ Vijan v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 7.4.2015 in which this Court has relied upon its earlier judgment rendered in the case of Imran @ Abdul Qudus Khan v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 Cr LJ 1328.

Considered the submissions.

The definition of the word “goonda” as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, is reproduced as under :

Section 2(b) defines a “goonda” as a person who:

(i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of an offence punishable under Section 153 or Section 153-B or Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the said Code; or

(ii) has been convicted for an offence punishable under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956; or

(iii) has been convicted not less than thrice for an offence punishable under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 or the Public Gambling Act, 1867 or Section 25, Section 27 or Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959; or

(iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community; or

(v) has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women or girls; or

(vi) is a tout; or

(vii) is a house-grabber.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Vijay Narain Singh (supra) while dealing with the provisions of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, a law relating to preventive detention, wherein the word “anti-social elements” as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act, was para materia with the definition of the word “goonda” as defined under this Act, held in paragraph-31 as under :

The expression ‘habitually’ means ‘repeatedly’ or ‘persistently’. It implies a thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit. If connotes freque