This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 22-4-99 under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), issued by opposite party No. 3, the District Magistrate Barabanki to the petitioner in case No. 109/99 pending before the Dis trict Magistrate. 2. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate were heard in detail and the record was perused. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice under challenge is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, hence the proceedings before the District Magistrate deserve to be quashed. Section 3 of the Act lays down the procedure for trial of the person under the Act. Sub-sec tion (1) of Section 3 read as follows: "3. (1) Where it appears to the District Magistrate- (a) that any person is a goonda; and (b) (i) that his movement is acts in the district or any part thereof are causing or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property; or (ii) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is engaged or about to engage, in the dist rict or any part thereof, in the commission of an offence referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (b) of Section 2, or in the abetment of any such offence; and (c) the witnesses not willing to come for ward to give evidence against him by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property. The District Magistrate shall by notice in writing, inform him of the general nature of the material allegations against him in respect of clauses (a), (b) and (c) and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an ex planation regarding them. " 4. The District Magistrate shall by notice in writing, inform him of the general nature of the material allegations against him in respect of clauses (a), (b) and (c) and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an ex planation regarding them. " 4. A reading of the last para of the sub-section shows that the District Magistrate has to inform the individual by notice the general nature of the material allegations against him in respect of clauses (a), (b) and (c) and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them; that is to say, the District Magistrate has to inform the person to whom notice is given that he is a goonda and that his movement can cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property and that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him etc. 5. The word "goonda" has been defined under clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, which reads as under: (b) "goonda" means 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 of fence punishable under Section 153 or Section 153-B or Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the said Code; or (ii) has been convicted for an offence punishable unaer the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956; or (iii) has been convicted nor less, then 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 com munity; or (v) has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women or girls; or (vi) is a tout. " 6. The net result is that the notice in writing should be given giving all the material allegations against the individual in respect of all the things which are to be made the basis of the trial under the Act. 7. In the instant case, the notice shows that three cases has been mentioned to be pending against the petitioner. The net result is that the notice in writing should be given giving all the material allegations against the individual in respect of all the things which are to be made the basis of the trial under the Act. 7. In the instant case, the notice shows that three cases has been mentioned to be pending against the petitioner. These are Crime No. 904-A/97 under Section 452/352/504/506, I. P. C. , Crime No. 1232/97 under Section 307, I. P. C. and Crime No. 1155-A/88 under Section 147/148/149/307, I. P. C. Needless to say that out of three cases, two are cross cases. In the notice no details are furnished of these cases and in the end also no detail is given in the Annexure which is on a printed from. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned notice does not contain these allegations in detail and simply contains a list of pending cases; therefore, the notice is bad and for this reliance was placed on the case of Ramji Pandeyv. State of U. P and others, 1981acj, 395, which is a decision of the Full Bench of this Court. It was held in this case that in case where the notice is not in accordance with Section 3 (1) of the Act; and in case notice fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of setting out the general nature of material allegations, then proceedings initiated in pursuance of that notice would be rendered illegal. It was further held that if the details of the cases have not been given then it does not fulfil the requirement of law with respect to "general nature of material allegations". In the instant case no details were given. Simply mentioning of a list of cases without giving the details and the material allegations, no condition of the para of Section 3 (1) is fulfilled. The petitioner was unable to avail himself of "reasonable op portunity of tendering an explanation" regarding him and the details of the cases mentioned in the notice. In the instant case the petitioner has been deprived of the reasonable opportunity of producing his evidence under sub-section (2) of Section 3 in support of his allegation. It was so held in the case oframjipandey (supra) that the petitioner was deprived of the reasonable opportunity, then the action must be held to be illegal. In the instant case the petitioner has been deprived of the reasonable opportunity of producing his evidence under sub-section (2) of Section 3 in support of his allegation. It was so held in the case oframjipandey (supra) that the petitioner was deprived of the reasonable opportunity, then the action must be held to be illegal. The notice, if not issued in accordance with Section 3 (1) of the Act, subsequent action shall be illegal. 9. In these circumstances, the peti tion deserves to be allowed. The writ peti tion is, therefore, allowed. The impugned notice dated 22-4-99 and the impugned proceedings in case No. 109/99 are hereby quashed. Petition allowed. .