A show cause notice failing to indicate the general nature of material allegations may be challenged and quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh notice in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram D. Chauhan, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the show cause notice dated 3rd July 2020 said to be issued by the respondent no. 2 - District Magistrate, Jaunpur.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA on behalf of the State.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been subjected to a show notice issued under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (U.P. Act No. VIII of 1971). The impugned show cause notice is illegal as the general material allegation under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Act No. VIII of 1971 has not been stated in the impuned show cause notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Bhim Sain Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1999 (39) ACC 321 (FB) and submits that the writ petition against the show cause notice is maintainable as has been held by the Full Bench of this court and as such the impugned notice is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned AGA for the State has raised objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition and has stated that in the writ petition the prayer is made for challenging the show cause notice whereas petitioner can always submit a reply to the show cause notice before the concerned authority and as such, the writ petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed.

5. The writ petition involves challenge to the alleged show cause notice dated 3rd July, 2020 said to have been issued by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur. As per the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid notice being Annexure 1 to the writ petition, is a show cause notice issued under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Act No. VIII of 1971. A perusal of the impugned notice would demonstrate that except mentioning of the criminal cases pending against the petitioner, the general material allegations in respect of the petitioner has not been stated in the impugned notice and on the strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice is bad in law and as such is liable to be quashed.

6. It is to be seen that the alleged notice dated 3rd July, 2020 is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition at page 17. A perusal of the aforesaid document would demonstrate that the document is a requisition issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur and is addressed to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur wherein the details as to why the proceedings under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Act No. VIII of 1971 be issued against the petitioner is stated, with a further request to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur to initiate proceedings under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Act No. VIII of 1971.

7. On the aforesaid requisition by the Superintendent of Police there is an endorsement by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur directing for registering the aforesaid case and transferring the aforesaid matter before the Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue for disposal.

8. In the present case, the dispute pertains to Section 3 of the U.P. Act No. VIII of 1971 and for convenience, the same is reproduced herein-below :-

“3. Externment, etc. of Goondas. – (1) Where it appears to the District Magistrate :

(a) that any person is a goonda; and

(b) (i) that his movements or acts in the district or any part thereof are causing, or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property; or

(ii) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is engaged or about to engage, in the district or any part thereof, in the commission of an offence referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (b) of Section 2, or in the abetment of any such offence; and

(c) That witnesses not willing to come forward to give evidence against him by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property.

The District Magistrate shall by notice in writing, in