The importance of exhausting remedies provided by the Act before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
U.P. Control of Goondas Act - Challenge to Notice - Section 3(1) - [Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act] - The court discussed the challenge to a notice issued under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act. It referred to previous judgments and emphasized that the challenge to a notice is not tenable as the petitioner has the opportunity to reply to the notice and contest the proceedings. The court also highlighted the disjunctive nature of the definition of 'Goonda' under Section 2(b) and the importance of exhausting remedies provided by the Act before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:

The writ petition was filed to quash the impugned notice issued by the District Magistrate under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act.
Finding of the Court:

The challenge to the notice was deemed not tenable as the petitioner had the opportunity to reply to the notice and contest the proceedings. The court referred to previous judgments and emphasized the importance of exhausting remedies provided by the Act before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: Challenge to a notice issued under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, maintainability of writ petition at the stage of notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The challenge to a notice is not tenable as the petitioner has the opportunity to reply to the notice and contest the proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting remedies provided by the Act before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The petition fails and is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notice issued by District Magistrate, Auraiya/respondent no. 2 in Case No. D-202303050000546, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, Police Station-Arvakatra, District-Auraiya."

3. Challenge in the writ petition is to a notice issued to the petitioner under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act. In our considered opinion, challenge to a notice is not tenable. The petitioner still have every opportunity of replying to the impugned show-cause notice issued to him and to contest the proceedings, if any, that may be drawn on its basis.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment and order dated 10.08.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12619 of 2023 (Govardhan vs. State of U.P.). Therein the notice was on the basis of a solitary case.

5. However, in Kareem vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Misc. Bench No. 24256 of 2020, vide order dated 04.01.2021, a co-ordinate Bench has refused to interfere in similar circumstances on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy of showing cause before the District Magistrate. This judgment is earlier in time and is based also on pronouncements of the Apex Court, but has not been considered in the judgment cited. In Kareem (supra) also, challenge tothe notice was on the ground that it had been issued on the basis of a single criminal case judgment is extracted below:

"Now, coming to the definition of 'Goonda' the Court finds that Goonda means a person who is covered by (i) of Section 2(b) or Clause (ii) or Clause (iii) or Clause (iv) or Clause (v) of the said Section. All the clauses are disjunctive as is evident from the use of the word 'or'.

Clause (iv) of Section 2(b) makes it very clear that a person can be categorized as Goonda if he is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community. This provision has not been considered in Suresh Tiwari' case (supra), though, Section 2(b) has been quoted in the said judgment. As regards the decision in Imran alias Abdul Qudus Khan the said case also considers meaning of the words 'habitual criminal' and does not delve upon other clauses of Section 2(b). The decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (1984) 3 SCC 14 as referred in the judgement in Suresh Tiwari's case (supra) deals with Section 2(b) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 and it was not a case of challenge to a notice.

Be that as it may, the specific issue as to maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a notice issued under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in case of Ballabh Chaubey Vs. Additional District Magistrate (Finance), Mathura and Anr; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2954 of 1996 decided on 22.01.1997 reported in 1997 A. Cr. R. 387 (1997 ALJ 1630). A Division of this Court specifically considered this issue and after referring to various decisions of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined not to entertain the writ petition at the stage of notice and gave cogent and detailed reasons in support of its conclusion. Relevant extract of the said decision is quoted hereinbelow:-

"8. The detention laws like National Security Act, or Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act make serious in-road in the liberty of a person. Under these laws a person is detained without any prior notice and that too on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority which satisfaction cannot be challenged on merits. The person detained gets only a right to make representati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document