Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 930 (ALL)

GORE LAL v. STATE OF U P

2002-07-31

K.N.SINHA, MARKANDEY KATJU

body2002
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. 2. Petitioner is challenging the show cause notice under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act. 3. Learned Counsel relies upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in Imaran alias Abdul Quddus Khan v. State of U. P. and others, (Cr. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7111 of 1999) decided on 30-11-1999, reported in 2000 (1) Alld. Civil Journal 108, and also upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bhim Singh Tyagi v. State of U. P. , 1999 (2) JIC 192 (All) ; 1999 U. P. Crl. Rulings 417 and Ramji Pandey v. State of U. P. and others, (1982) U. P. Crl. Rulings 1 (Full Bench ). 4. On the other hand the Supreme Court has held in 1995 (8) J. T. (sic) Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others, A. I. R. 1996 S. C. 691 vide Para 10 that a writ petition against a show cause notice should not be ordinarily entertained. Hence the writ petition at this stage is premature and this Court is not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because a show cause notice by itself does not give rise to a cause of action, as no adverse order has as yet been passed. 5. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Full Bench decisions in Bhim Singh Tyagi v. State of U. P. , 1999 (2) JIC 192 (All); 1999 U. P. Crl. Ruling 417; Ramji Pandey v. State of U. P. and others, (1982) U. P. Crl. Rulings 1 (F. B.), and the Division Bench decision in Imaran alias Abdul Quddus Khan v. State of U. P. and others, case are all distinguishable, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court holding that a writ petition should not be ordinarily entertained against a show cause notice. 6. We further lay down as a general principle that a writ petition will not be ordinarily entertained by this Court against a show cause notice under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of showing cause before the authority concerned. 6. We further lay down as a general principle that a writ petition will not be ordinarily entertained by this Court against a show cause notice under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of showing cause before the authority concerned. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction, and this Court will not ordinarily exercise its jurisdiction against a show cause notice. It is possible that after considering the reply of the petitioner the authority may be satisfied with his explanation. 7. This petition is dismissed at this stage. Petition dismissed. .