Dismissed

Roop Singh @ Bhoora v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2019CRLP/14940/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of a Section 3 notice under the U.P. Control of Goonda Act. Relying on the Supreme Court and prior decisions, the bench held the writ petition was not maintainable and found no illegality in the notice, though the petitioner was permitted to file a reply through counsel.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the show cause notice was dismissed. The petitioner is allowed to submit a reply through counsel if so advised.

Roop Singh @ Bhoora Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14940 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Roop Singh @ Bhoora Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran, Prateek Samadhiya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J .

¶5

Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran and Sri Prateek Samadhiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing the impugned notice dated 08.04.2019 issued to the petitioner under Section 3 of U.P. Control of Goonda Act, 1970 by District Magistrate, Jhansi-respondent no.3.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the impugned show cause notice, petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi-respondent no. 2 and the same was dismissed by respondent no. 2 as not maintainable. He further submits that the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice issued by the respondent no. 3 under Section 3 of Control of Goonda Act. There is manifest error in the said notice as the general nature of material allegation has not been mentioned by the respondent no. 3 and only vague notice has been issued to him. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is in jail and hence, petitioner is unable to file reply to the said notice.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned notice and submitted that it is always open to the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice before competent authority.

¶9

We do not find any ground to quash the show cause notice as the writ petition against said notice is not maintainable in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Executive Engineer State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, AIR 1996 SC 691 and Jainendra @ Chhotu Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2007 (57) ACC 791 and also judgement and order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.869 of 2018 Pramod Katyayn Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 21.2.2018 and there appears to be no illegality in the impugned notice.

¶10

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶11

However, it is open for the petitioner to submit his reply against the said show cause notice through counsel, if so advise.

¶12

(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 16.7.2019 Anand

Roop Singh @ Bhoora v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roop Singh @ Bhoora v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gullu @ Heera Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pappu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arashaduddeen and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mayur Chhattani and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others