The notice issued under section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 must fulfill the conditions mentioned in the Act, including showing that the person habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets commission of an offence mentioned in the Act and witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him for reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property.

Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the notice dated 20.01.2012 issued by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, under section 3 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in case no.51/23 year 2012, titled State vs. Sharafat son of Karamat.

2. District Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner on 20.01.2012 stating therein that on the basis of information given by the S.S.P. Udham Singh Nagar it appears to him that the petitioner, who is residing within the territory of Kashipur, is a Goonda or as a member of a gang or leader of the gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of an offence punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code and is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community. It was also stated in the notice that there are reasonable grounds for believing that his movement or act in the Kashipur region are causing, or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or he is engaged or about to engage, in the Kashipur region or is in abetment of such offence under The Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1955 or under U.P. Excise Act 1910. It was also stated in the notice that witnesses are 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. It was also mentioned in the notice that he has following criminal history:

(i) Case Crime No.263 of 2010 u/s 13 Gambling Act

(ii) Case Crime No.160 of 2011 u/s 13 Gambling Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned notice dated 20.01.2012 issued by the District Magistrate, Udhm Singh Nagar to the petitioner is nothing but gross abuse of the provision of the Act. The abuse is not only malicious but also capricious. He submitted that under no circumstances the petitioner can be said as Goonda and he is not covered by the definition as provided under the Act. He referred Section 2(b) of the Act which is being quoted below:-

(b) ‘Goonda’ mean 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;

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the notice itself, the criminal history of the petitioner has been given in which two cases are shown pending against the petitioner. The same relate to Section 13 of the Gambling Act. He contented that in such circumstances, it is clear that the notice was given to the petitioner only to harass him and same deserves to be quashed.

5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that simple notice has been issued to the petitioner and he has been asked to appear before the District Magistrate. Learned Government Advocate submitted that petition against the show cause notice is not maintainable and should be dismissed and the petitioner should be asked to appear before the District Magistrate, who will pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioner.

6. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. Question of maintainability of writ petition on the ground of existence of an alternat