# Govardhan v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 147
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12619 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rahul Chaturvedi, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/govardhan-v-state-of-u-p-50763
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, 354B
& 452 -The Uttar Pradesh Control of
Goondas Act, 1970 - Section 2(b), 3 -
"Goonda"
-
habitually
commits
the
offences - on one stray incident only
petitioner could not be deemed to be
habitual offender on the basis of that
single incident - "one" cannot be treated
to be a 'habitual offender' unless and until
there is a tendency of recurrence of the
offence. (Para -12,13 )

Show cause notice issued by DM - against
petitioner - for purposes of bringing an
additional offence within four corners of
Goondas Act - quashing of - only one criminal
case - one beat report - solitary case -
"prescribed
printed
proforma"
-
without
application of mind by executive authorities -
general nature of material allegations against
petitioner
-
granted
anticipatory
bail
till
conclusion of trial - witnessing rampant misuse
of provisions Goondas Act. (Para - 2,4, 13,15)

HELD:-Notice is nothing, but a sheer abuse of
power vested in the executive authorities of the
district.
No
uniformity
in
the
executive
authorities of the districts of UP regarding
applicability of this deterrent enactment causing
unwarranted piling up of the cases, challenging
the notices under this Act etc.. Direction issued
to State Government to form a uniform guide
lines in light of judgment. Show cause notice
quashed. (Para - 20,21)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Govardhan Vs. State of U.P.
147
(2023) 9 ILRA 147
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12619 of 2023

Govardhan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Akhilesh
Srivastava,
Sri
Saksham
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506, 354, 354B
& 452 -The Uttar Pradesh Control of
Goondas Act, 1970 - Section 2(b), 3 -
"Goonda"
-
habitually
commits
the
offences - on one stray incident only
petitioner could not be deemed to be
habitual offender on the basis of that
single incident - "one" cannot be treated
to be a 'habitual offender' unless and until
there is a tendency of recurrence of the
offence. (Para -12,13 )

Show cause notice issued by DM - against
petitioner - for purposes of bringing an
additional offence within four corners of
Goondas Act - quashing of - only one criminal
case - one beat report - solitary case -
"prescribed
printed
proforma"
-
without
application of mind by executive authorities -
general nature of material allegations against
petitioner
-
granted
anticipatory
bail
till
conclusion of trial - witnessing rampant misuse
of provisions Goondas Act. (Para - 2,4, 13,15)

HELD:-Notice is nothing, but a sheer abuse of
power vested in the executive authorities of the
district.
No
uniformity
in
the
executive
authorities of the districts of UP regarding
applicability of this deterrent enactment causing
unwarranted piling up of the cases, challenging
the notices under this Act etc.. Direction issued
to State Government to form a uniform guide
lines in light of judgment. Show cause notice
quashed. (Para - 20,21)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kailash Jaiswal Vs St. Of U.P. & ors. , Crl.
Misc. W. P. No. 10241 of 2019

2. Suresh Tewari Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2018 (5)
ALJ 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.
&
Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.G.A. for the State and also
perused the record.

2. Present petition has been filed on
behalf of petitioner Govardhan seeking
following main prayer:

"Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
show cause notice dated 15.6.2023, issued
by the Additional District Magistrate
(Finance & Revenue), Aligarh, in Case No.
3400 of 2023 (State Vs. Govardhan), under
Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of
Goondas
Act,
1970,
Police
Station
Chharra, District Aligarh (Annexure No. 1
to the writ petition)."

3. Normally, we do not entertain such
type of petitions, where only show cause
notice is issued by the Additional District
Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Aligarh
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(the Executive Authority of the District), in
Case No. 3400 of 2023, State Vs.
Govardhan), under Section 3 of the Uttar
Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970,
Police Station Chharra, District Aligarh.

4. In the instant case, the notice under
Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of
Goondas Act, 1970 dated 15.6.2023 has
been issued on the basis of two cases, (i)
Case Crime No. 69 of 2023, under Sections
323, 504, 506, 354, 354B, 452 IPC, Police
Station Chharra, District Aligarh and (ii)
Rapat No. 20, dated 3.5.2023. On the basis
of these "so called two cases" the
Additional District Magistrate (Finance &
Revenue), Aligarh has issued a notice under
aforesaid section of the Act, 1970 against
the petitioner for the purposes of bringing
an additional offence within the four
corners of Uttar Pradesh Control of
Goondas Act, 1970. For this objective the
person must be a "Goonda" and this
expression of "Goonda" has been defined
in Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Control
of Goonda Act, 1970.

5. The peculiar feature of this
enactment that the person who is branded
as "Goonda" should be ousted from the
municipal limits of the city as a preventive
measure by the executive authorities of the
district by passing externment order. That
the person either himself or as a member or
leader of a gang, who is habitually commits
the offences mentioned in the Section 2(b)
of the Act or he has got the tendency to
commit the offence time and again. If a
person is having a solitary case to his
credit, he cannot be branded that he has a
habitual Goonda pleaded by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.

6. Provisions of Uttar Pradesh Control
of Goonda Act, 1970 are applicable in the
entire State of U.P. From the plain reading
of the enactment, it could be said with
utmost certainty that this enactment has
been promulgated to save the citizens from
habitual "Goonda". The expression of
Goonda has been defined in Section 2(b) of
Uttar Pradesh Control of Goonda Act, 1970
which is as under:

2(b) "Goonda" means 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, or 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
incident remarks or teasing women or girls;
or

(vi) is a tout.

7. Its punishment is provided in
Section 3 of the aforementioned enactment
that when it appears to the District
Magistrate that any person is a "Goonda"
or his movements or acts in the district or
any part thereof may cause or are
calculated to alarm, danger or harm to the
persons or property of the district. The
9 All. Govardhan Vs. State of U.P.
149
District Magistrate feels and have a
sufficient material of believing that, he is
engaged or about to engage in the District
or any part thereof, in the commission of
offence referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iii)
of clause (b) of Section 2, or its abetment
of such an offence and no witness would
come forward to give evidence against him,
meaning thereby, that individual has earned
lots of bad name and has got sufficient
'nuisance value' in the district. By this
reason of apprehension with regard to the
safety of their person or property, the
District Magistrate may pass externment
order for a period of six months as
specified in law with sole motive to save
the citizens from the wrath of that
individual "Goonda". Thus, it can safely be
termed that under this enactment, the
District Magistrate are empowered to
handle such type of miscreants and oust
them from the municipal limit of the
district maximum for the period of six
months by way of preventive measures.
This is a deterrent law whereby a person
who is termed as a "Goonda" is asked to
leave the premises of the district. It shall be
branded as "Goonda" for rest of his life.

8. The District Magistrate before
exercising this extraordinary and unusual
powers conferred by this enactment, must
exercise with all caution and care, but we
are noticing that there is a rampant misuse
of provisions of this enactment. The
executive authorities for the extraneous
consideration exercising this extraordinary
powers at their whims and capricious and
are issuing notices on a solitary case or
some beat reports. This amounts to make
the
deterrent
enactment
blunt.
The
indiscreet exercise of provisions of Goonda
Act and sending the notices to the persons
is not based on executive authorities' sweet
will or choice. Issuing notice on solitary
case is quite irritating and unnecessarily,
there is piling up of litigation. In the instant
case there is solitary case and solely on this
basis no executive authority can justify that
the petitioner is a 'habitual offender' or
involved in the cases mentioned in Section
2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of
Goondas Act, 1970.

9. It is a fundamental right of every
citizen to reside peacefully and profess his
business, but if the executive authorities are
issuing notice under this deterrent law, then
they must be doubly sure about the
individual's past image, his past credentials,
his family, social educational back ground
and after assessing all these factors if the
executive
authorities
comes
to
the
conclusion that individual is a "Goonda" or
a potential threat to society at large and
should be thrown out from the municipal
limits, then only by well reasoned order,
after applying his own independent judicial
mind pass a well reasoned order for
externment of that individual or even issue
notice to that individual calling upon him to
justify his past conduct.

10. The public perception regarding
the individuals' image carries weight. If the
individual is enjoying a bad reputation and
name in the area and coupled with the fact
that he has got a chequered past then
executive authorities are well within their
right to issue notice to that individual or to
pass
an
externment
order
for
that
individual.
Trivial
and
insignificant
offences having one or two in number
would not make the person branded as a
"Goonda". This adjective "Goonda" itself
carries bundle load of bad name, and the
executive
authorities
casually
and
irresponsibly brand a person as a Goonda,
goes without saying, that his entire future
and reputation would go to dogs and cause
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
irreparable damage to his name and
reputation of his family.

11. Sri Srivastava, learned counsel for
the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of
this Court in the case of Kailash Jaiswal
Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others (Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 10241 of 2019)
decided on 14.11.2022 in which the coordinate Bench of this Court while relying
upon the judgment of Suresh Tewari
Versus State of U.P. and others, 2018 (5)
ALJ
1
opined
that
requirement
of
applicability of clause (1) of Section 2 of
Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act,
1970 is that a person who either himself or
as a member or leader of a gang habitually
commits or attempt to commits or abets the
commission of offence is punishable as
referred in the clause (1) itself.

12. Paragraph nos. 11, 12, 14 & 16 of
Kailash Jaiswal (Supra) are reproduced
hereunder:

"11. In this backdrop, it is
submitted that the notice under the U.P.
Goondas Act Is not only malicious but
misuse of the power vested upon the
District Magistrate, the proceedings have
been initiated in colourable exercise of
power to coerce the petitioner to vacate the
premises which admittedly does not vest
with the State. Further, it is submitted that
on a single case, proceedings under the
U.P. Goondas Act cannot be initiated as the
petitioner is not a habitual offender.

12. Reliance has been placed on
the decision of this Court rendered in
Suresh Tewari Versus State of U.P. and
others, 2018 (5) ALJ 1.

14. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that impugned notice is
not in conformity with the Rule 4 of the
U.P. Control of Goondas Rules, 1970. He
further submits that Section 3 of the U.P.
Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter
to be referred to as the "Act") confers
powers
on
the
concerned
District
Magistrate to extern anyone, who is the
Goonda outside the district or to place
restriction on his movement. If the District
Magistrate is satisfied that the matters set
forth in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of subSection (1) of the Goondas Act are made
out he may issue notice to the Goonda
informing him of the general nature of
material allegations against him in clause
(d) of the Act. He further submits that in the
instant case clause (d) mentions about the
only case registered against the petitioner
being Case Crime No. 212 of 2019, thus the
second respondent has mechanically noted
the case pending against the petitioner in
the prescribed proforma without applying
its mind, as well as, without recording
satisfaction about the matter set out in
clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Act.

16. The Division Bench of this
Court in Suresh Tewari (2018(5) ALJ1),
held relying upon the Supreme Court
judgment that on one stray incident only
petitioner could not be deemed to be
habitual offender on the basis of that single
incident. Para no. 19 reads thus:-

19........... The requirement of
applicability of the clause (i) is that
Goonda means that a person who either by
himself or as a member or leader of a
gang, habitually commits or attempts to
commit, or abets the commission of
offences punishable referred to in the said
clause. In the impugned show cause notice
there is a description of only one criminal
case against the petitioner, while as per the
definition and the law settled by this Court
as well by the Hon'ble Apex Court, one
cannot be treated to be a habitual offender
unless and until there is recurrence of
offences. Since there is a reference of one
9 All. Govardhan Vs. State of U.P.
151
stray incident only in the notice, the
petitioner could not be deemed to be a
habitual offender on the basis of that single
incident only and so the notice fails to
satisfy the legal requirement."

13. In the impugned notice, there is a
description of only one criminal case and
one beat report against the petitioner while
as per the definition and law settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as well a by this Court
"one" cannot be treated to be a 'habitual
offender' unless and until there is a
tendency of recurrence of the offence. In
the instant case there is a solitary case to
the credit of the petitioner, in which he has
been granted anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of trial, we find that this notice
is nothing, but a sheer abuse of power
vested in the executive authorities of the
district.

14. In addition to above, there is
mandatory requirement of the law, that if
the executive authority is satisfied that the
proceedings under Goonda Act spells out
offences under clause (a), (b) and (c) of
sub-Section 1 of the Act, he may issue
notices
to
the
particular
"Goonda"
informing him general nature of material
allegations against him in clause (d) of the
Act, his image among the masses, his
nuisance value by which he is a potential
threat to the peace and public order of the
society at large.

15. But in the instant case, in the
notice under challenge spells out the cases
required against the petitioner which is
allegedly issued on a "prescribed printed
proforma" without application of mind by
the executive authorities. Not only this,
except enumeration of pending solitary
case and a beat report, there is total lack of
any judicial mind spelling out the general
nature of material allegations against the
petitioner, making entire impugned notice
per se defective and cannot be acted upon
any further.

16. We record our strong displeasure
in such type of routine pasting of such
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Control of
Goondas Act, 1970 and Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 in a most capricious
and casual way.

17. At this juncture, learned A.G.A.
stood up and informed the Court that in
addition to the cases mentioned in the show
cause notice, the petitioner is also involved
in two-three more cases which do not find
place in the show cause notice. This
submissions advanced by the learned
A.G.A. itself is amusing. This clearly
indicates that one hand does not know what
another hand is doing. All of a sudden
learned A.G.A. woke up and revealed that
in addition to two cases mentioned in
impugned notices, the petitioner has got
two more cases. The Court cannot take the
judicial notice of those additional cases; we
cannot permit this hide and seek practice
with the proposed "Goonda" i.e. the
petitioner.

18. Present matter is squarely covered
by the aforesaid judgment and liable to be
quashed. Accordingly, we are quashing the
show cause notice dated 15.6.2023, issued
by the Additional District Magistrate
(Finance & Revenue), Aligarh, in Case No.
3400 of 2023, State Vs. Govardhan), under
Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of
Goondas Act, 1970, Police Station Chharra,
District Aligarh.

19. Registrar General, High Court is
directed to circulate the copy of this
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment apprising all the executive
authorities of the State of U.P. to strictly
adhere the ratio laid down mentioned
above. Hence forth it is expected from the
authorities that they would necessarily
spell out 'general nature of particular
allegations against the proposes Goonda',
his personal image among the masses his
social family background and then only
pass a well reasoned order not on a
prescribed proforma while issuing a show
cause notice and thereafter a pass a well
reasoned order of externment, (if at all
required and needed) by the said executive
authorities concerned. All the District
Magistrates and the executive authorities
working under him are directed to take
appropriate action hence forth and proceed
against the individual where they have got
a strong reason to believe that the
individual is rogue to the society and his
externment is a desirable.

20. As mentioned above, we are
witnessing
rampant
misuse
of
the
provisions of Uttar Pradesh Control of
Goondas Act, 1970. Ther is no uniformity
in the executive authorities of the districts
of UP regarding applicability of this
deterrent enactment causing unwarranted
piling up of the cases, challenging the
notices under this Act etc.

(A). Thus in this regard, it is
directed that the State Government too
would form a uniform guide lines regarding
the applicability of this Act in the light of
the above judgment.

(B). This guidelines must be
framed latest by 31st October 2023 and
shall be circulated among all the District
Magistrates of the Districts, so that they
may strictly adhere to those guidelines and
their shall be Uniformity in the application
of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Control
of Goondas Act, 1970.

21. With this direction, the writ
petition stands allowed. The impugned
show cause notice dated 15.6.2023 issued
by the Additional District Magistrate
(Finance & Revenue), Aligarh is hereby
quashed. No order as to cost.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 152
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12808 of 2023

Rahul Saxena @ Bhola/Bholu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nagesh Kumar Dwivedi, Sri Ashwini
Kumar, Sri Sushil Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act.
1986 - Sections 2/3 - The U.P. Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021 - Rule 5 & 10 , Public
Gambling Act, 1867 - Section 3/2 ,
Certified copy - not defined - definition of
phrase as per Law Lexicon & Black's Law
Dictionary - copy of a document signed
and certified as a true copy by the officer
to whose custody the original in entrusted
- copy, which is certified to be true in
terms of Section 76 of the Evidence Act is
also a certified copy - 'certified copy' as a
duplicate of an original, usually an official
document,
certified
as
an
exact