Allahabad HC Dismisses Writ Against Goondas Act Notice Filed 100 Days Late, Without Explaining Date of Service

The Lucknow Bench dismissed a petition challenging a show cause notice under the UP Goondas Act, holding the 100-day delay and absence of a service date were fatal to the challenge.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition at the admission stage on 21 July 2026. The petitioner, Faishal Beg, had challenged a show cause notice dated 20 March 2026 issued by the District Magistrate (Judicial), Unnao, under Section 3 of The Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970. The court found the petition misconceived on two distinct grounds: the writ was filed only on 30 June 2026, roughly 100 days after the notice was issued, without any explanation of when the notice was actually served, and the substantive challenge to the notice failed on merits.

The Show Cause Notice and Petitioner's Challenge

The District Magistrate (Judicial), Unnao, issued the show cause notice under Section 3 of the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970 on 20 March 2026. The petitioner did not file any explanation to the notice before the District Magistrate. Instead, he approached the High Court over three months later.

Before the Bench, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sajjad Husain, raised two arguments. First, he contended the notice was issued in breach of Rule 3(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Rules, 1970, which requires the District Magistrate to act ordinarily on information in writing received from the Superintendent of Police, the Magistrate-in-charge of the sub-division, or two respectable citizens of the locality. The information in the present case had been sent by the SHO, Police Station Safipur, Unnao, to the District Magistrate through the Superintendent of Police, Unnao, by way of a letter dated 19 October 2025.

Second, the petitioner relied on the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in In Re: Ramji Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in 1981 SCC Online All 305. Specifically, he cited paragraph 22 of that ruling, arguing that a show cause notice which contains no specific allegations and only references FIR numbers is a nullity in law. He submitted the impugned notice suffered from the same defect.

Why the Bench Rejected the Rule 3(1) Argument

The Bench examined the letter dated 19 October 2025 placed on record as Annexure S.A.-1 of the second supplementary affidavit. It found that the SHO, Kotwali, Safipur, Unnao had routed the information on criminal antecedents of the petitioner through the Superintendent of Police, Unnao, to the District Magistrate. The court held that this satisfied Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1970.

The Bench went further. Even where a complaint comes from two respectable persons of the locality, the District Magistrate would still need to seek a report from the police station through the Superintendent of Police to verify the criminal antecedents of the person concerned. The court reasoned that the letter sent by the SHO through the Superintendent of Police was entirely in keeping with the spirit of Rule 3(1).

Distinguishing the Full Bench Precedent in Ramji Pandey

The Bench read the impugned notice dated 20 March 2026 carefully and found that it was not simply a list of FIRs. Paragraphs ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’ of the notice contained details of the petitioner's criminal acts and his general bad reputation, described as detrimental to the public at large. Paragraph ‘Ga’ gave particulars of four cases.

The court distinguished the facts from those in In Re: Ramji Pandey. In that Full Bench matter, the impugned notice had contained no specific allegations and merely listed FIR numbers, and it was on that basis alone that it was set aside. The present notice, by contrast, contained specific allegations beyond bare FIR references. The Bench held that a judgment is not applicable where the facts and circumstances differ from those before the court that decided it.

The 100-Day Delay as an Independent Ground

Even before addressing the merits, the court flagged a preliminary problem. When asked by the Bench where the writ petition disclosed the date of service of the 20 March 2026 notice, counsel admitted that the date of service had not been mentioned anywhere in the petition. Additionally, the petitioner had filed no reply or explanation to the notice before the District Magistrate.

The writ petition was filed on 30 June 2026 — about 100 days after the notice was issued. The Bench observed that this delay, taken together with the omission to state the date of service, showed lack of alertness and seriousness on the part of the petitioner. The court found it prima facie apparent that the petitioner was not genuinely aggrieved by the notice, since he had not moved against it either before the High Court or any other competent authority for over 100 days.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition in limine as misconceived. It held that the mandate of Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1970 had been followed in letter and spirit in issuing the show cause notice, and that the directions of the Full Bench in In Re: Ramji Pandey had also been obeyed. No order as to costs was made.