Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ram Singh Vs. District Magistrate, Fatehpur and Another

Ram Singh vs District Magistrate, Fatehpur and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 23, 1997
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/461708

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.M.W.P. No. 31048 of 1997
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal - show cause notice - Section 3 of U.P Control of Goondas Act, 1970 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India - writ petition not maintainable against a show cause notice issued under U.P. Control of Goondas Act. -

Key legal issue
Civil
Acts & sections
Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 - Sections 3

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Singh

Advocate K.K. Dwivedi, Adv.

Respondent

District Magistrate, Fatehpur and Another

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts
Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 - Sections 3
Reported In
1998(1)AWC706

Excerpt

criminal - show cause notice - section 3 of u.p control of goondas act, 1970 and article 226 of the constitution of india - writ petition not maintainable against a show cause notice issued under u.p. control of goondas act. - r.r.k. trivedi and m. katju, jj.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.2. this petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 19.6.1997 served on the petitioner under section 3 of the u. p. control of goondas act, 1970.3. a division bench of this court in ballabh chaubey v. a.d.m., mathura, writ petition no. 2954 of 1996 and rajesh pal v. a.d.m., varanasi, writ petition no. 1818 of 1996, has already taken the view vide their judgment dated 22.1.1997 that a writ petition against a show-cause notice under the u. p. control of goondas act will not be maintainable. the division bench has distinguished the judgment of the full bench in the case of ram ji pandey v. state of u. p., 1981 alj 897, and has held that in ramji pandey's case the question whether a writ petition against a show-cause notice should be entertained was not considered.4. we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the division bench in ballabh chaubey's case (supra). the hon'ble supreme court has also held in executive engineer v. r. k. singh, jt1995 (8) sc 331, that a writ petition shall not lie against a show-cause notice. we also hold that no writ petition should be entertained against a show-cause notice issued under the u. p. control of goondas act. the petitioner has a remedy of filing a reply to the show-cause.5. in the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is rejected.

Full Judgment

R.R.K. Trivedi and M. Katju, JJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 19.6.1997 served on the petitioner under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970.

3. A Division Bench of this Court in Ballabh Chaubey v. A.D.M., Mathura, Writ Petition No. 2954 of 1996 and Rajesh Pal v. A.D.M., Varanasi, Writ Petition No. 1818 of 1996, has already taken the view vide their judgment dated 22.1.1997 that a writ petition against a show-cause notice under the U. P. Control of Goondas Act will not be maintainable. The Division Bench has distinguished the judgment of the Full Bench In the case of Ram Ji Pandey v. State of U. P., 1981 ALJ 897, and has held that in Ramji Pandey's case the question whether a writ petition against a show-cause notice should be entertained was not considered.

4. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Ballabh Chaubey's case (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in Executive Engineer v. R. K. Singh, JT1995 (8) SC 331, that a writ petition shall not lie against a show-cause notice. We also hold that no writ petition should be entertained against a show-cause notice issued under the U. P. Control of Goondas Act. The petitioner has a remedy of filing a reply to the show-cause.

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial