Allahabad High Court
RAJESH GOSWAMIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The show‑cause notice issued under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 is valid and cannot be quashed; the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
Rajesh Goswami filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging a show‑cause notice dated 05‑05‑2026 issued by the Additional District Magistrate under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. He contended that the notice was vague, illegal and that he was wholly innocent. The State argued that the notice merely required the petitioner to explain why proceedings under the Act should not be initiated and that the material allegations were detailed in an annexed police report. The Court observed that the notice is a procedural show‑cause notice, the general nature of the material allegations was expressly mentioned, and the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing a reply within the stipulated time, which he failed to avail. Accordingly, the Court held the notice to be proper and lawful and dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner must first use the available remedial mechanism.
Issues considered
- Whether the show‑cause notice issued under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 is vague and illegal and therefore liable to be quashed.
- Whether the petitioner can approach the High Court without first availing the alternative remedy of replying to the notice within the prescribed time.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 — s. 3(1)
Subjects
- show cause notice
- U.P. Control of Goondas Act
- Section 3(1)
- writ petition
- procedural remedy
- vagueness
- quash
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21410 of 2026
Rajesh Goswami
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the impugned notice dated 05.05.2026 issued
by respondent no.2- Additional District Magistrate (Finance
and Revenue), Chandauli in Case No. D-
202614180000096, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of
Goondas Act, 1970, Police Station Alinagar, District
Chandauli.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is wholly innocent and has illegally been issued a
notice under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted
that general nature of material allegations has also not
been stated in the impugned notice, which further renders
the impugned notice highly vague and illegal and as such,
the impugned notice is liable to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the
respondents has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer
and has submitted that by means of the impugned notice
dated 05.05.2026, the petitioner has merely been served a
CRLP No. 21410 of 2026
2
show cause notice calling upon him to tender his
explanation as to why in the facts and circumstances
enumerated therein proceeding under Section 3(1) of U.P.
Control of Goondas Act, be not initiated against him.
6. By the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to
tender his explanation by 18.05.2026 and to disclose the
name of any witness, which he would wish to examine in
his defence, however, even after the lapse of more than
four and a half months, the reply has not been tendered,
instead the instant writ petition has been filed to quash the
impugned notice.
7. It is further submitted that vide police report dated
05.11.2025, which has been annexed as Annexure No.6 to
the writ petition, general nature of material allegations in
respect of the cases mentioned in the impugned notice has
also been stated and as such, the said show cause notice
cannot be said to be vague and illegal as submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner and as such, the instant
writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the rival submission made by learned
counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact
that the impugned notice is merely a show cause notice,
which is required to be replied by the petitioner highlighting
his stand in respect of the cases mentioned therein and
furthermore, by the forwarding report dated 05.11.2025
submitted by the competent authorities including Station
House Officer, Police Station Alinagar, concerned Circle
Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pandit Deen Dayal
Upadhyay Nagar, general nature of material allegations in
respect of each offence, on the basis of which, impugned
notice has been issued, is clearly mentioned, however, the
petitioner, instead of tendering his reply to the said notice,
has directly approached this Court by means of present writ
petition to quash the impugned notice, though an effective
alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, which he
has not availed even after the lapse of more than four and
CRLP No. 21410 of 2026
3
a half months and therefore, in the backdrop of the
aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
show cause notice served upon the petitioner, is just,
proper and legal and do not call for any interference by this
Court, leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the
alternative effective remedy.
9. The instant writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly
dismissed.
September 30,
2026
Nadim
(Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NADIM ALAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…