JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Challenge in this Writ Petition is the notice under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dated 11.11.2008, issued by Additional District Magistrate (City), Allahabad, in case No. 56 of 2008, State v. Shibu Siddiqui, under Section 3(3) of the Act. 2. Before we proceed to deal with legality or otherwise of the said notice in conjunction with the raised contentions by the contesting rival sides, a resume of factual matrix are sketched below. 3. Additional District Magistrate (City), Allahabad, was supplied with a dossier by the police on the basis of which he issued notice under Section 3(1) of the Act, to the petitioner mentioning therein that the petitioner who is son of Gulam Murtaza, resident of 139, Bans Mandi, Tilak Road, PS. Muthiganj, Allahabad is a Goonda and is a habitual criminal, who commits crime under Chapter 16, 17 and 22 of I.P.C. and has a reputation of being an outlaw and his presence is detrimental to the society. The general nature of material allegations against him are (a) Possession of explosives (b) assault without reason (c) extortion by show of force (d) and terrorise people by projecting bombs. 4. Notice further details criminal cases pending against the petitioner which includes (1) Cr. No. 93 of 2007, under Sections 4/5, Explosives Substances Act, in which charge-sheet has already been submitted on 7.7.2007, (2) Cr. No. 45 of 2008, under Section 324, I.P.C. In which also charge-sheet has been submitted on 26.6.2008, (3) Cr. No. 258 of 2008, under Section 4/5 Explosive Substances Act, in which investigation is still in progress (4) beat report 36 dated 18.8.2008, the inquiry of which revealed that the petitioner is a goonda and public in general deter to give evidence against him. 5. On the above factual matrix, Additional District Magistrate (City) has issued notice under Section 3 (1) of the Act , which is now prayed to be quashed in this writ petition as the petitioner claims himself to be peace loving and law abiding citizen of the country and has never been involved in any activity that tends to disturb Civil Peace and tranquillity of society. The petitioner has been asked to submit his reply in response to the impugned show notice as to why an action should not be taken against him under Section 3(3) of the Act, fixing 2.12.2008, for his appearance before the issuing authority. 6. We have heard Sri I.N. Mulla and Ramanuj Pandey advocate in support of this petition and learned AGA in opposition. 7. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice mainly on the following grounds : (A) The charges levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice dated 11.11.2008 does not contain general nature of material allegations as is required under the Act and Rules framed thereunder and hence the impugned notice is not in accordance with law which makes it illegal. It only mentions a list of pending cases and hence the authority issuing the impugned show cause notice has not applied his mind. (B) The petitioner has been bailed out in all the cases mentioned in the show cause notice and so there was no justification for issuing show cause notice by the authority concerned. (C) More than six months have lapsed from the date of issuing of impugned show cause notice and hence notice has become stale and hence, now, no action should be taken against the petitioner in pursuance to the notice impugned and, if at all necessary, a fresh notice should have been issued by the concerned authority. 8. Taking the objections raised before us in a seriatim we find that none of the submissions raised are worthy of merits. The first grievance of the petitioner is that the notice does not contain general nature of material allegations. In this respect we point out that this submission is against the factual aspect as the notice does contain general nature of material allegations. We, in the earlier part of this judgment have spelt out those general natures which are possession of explosives, assault without reason, extortion by show of force, and terrorise people by projecting bombs. These are not specific allegations but they only describe general nature of material allegations. Mentioning of cases in which the petitioner is involved is after the description of above general nature and hence those cases are only exemplers of material allegations. These are not specific allegations but they only describe general nature of material allegations. Mentioning of cases in which the petitioner is involved is after the description of above general nature and hence those cases are only exemplers of material allegations. It may be recalled here that ours’ is a vast country with population over 100 crores and State of U.P. is the most populous State, so there is a greater social responsibility on the administration to maintain peace and order in the society. Keeping the said aim and object the Legislature has promulgated the Act for keeping Goondas away from the society where they have got their area of operation, ostensibly with a view to maintain law and order and public peace and tranquillity. We at this point reproduce the relevant provision of the Act hereinbelow : "3. Externment, etc, of Goondas—(1) Where it appears to the District Magistrate— (a) that any person is a Goonda; and (b) (i) that his movements or acts in the district or any part thereof are causing, or are calculated to cause alaram, 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 district or any part thereof, in the commission of an offence referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (ii) of clause (b) of Section 2, or in the abetment of any such offence; and (c) that witness are not willing to come forward 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 explanation regarding them." 9. In exercise of power, as is provided under Section 15 of the Act, the State Government has framed Rules known as the U.P. Control of Goondas Rules, 1970, Rule 4 provides that the notice under Section 3(1) of Act, as far as may be, conform to Form 1, Section 3(1) read with Rule 4 vest a power in the competent authority to take into consideration any aspect which he considers to be of a probative value for the purpose of taking action under the Act exist or not? Analysing from such a point of view we find that no fault can be find with the contents of the impugned notice and the first contention of the petitioner is unmerited and is hereby repelled. In our view we are supported by the decisions of this Court reported in Ballabh Chaubey v. Additional District Magistrate (Finance), Mathura, 1997 UP Cr R 309; Ramji Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, 1982 UP Cr R 1 (FB); Subas Singh v. District Magistrate Ghazipur, 1997 ACC 262; and Bhim Singh Tyagi v. State of U.P., 1999 UP Cr R 417. 10. In the decision of Ramji Pandey (supra) this Court has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Mehbub Khan, AIR 1968 SC 1468 ; and Pandhari Nath Rangnekar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 630 . 11. Coming to the raised second submissions by the counsel for the petitioner we only observe this much that bailing out an accused in a criminal offence is altogether a different judicial exercise than exercising administrative power of externment under the Act. Grant of bail is governed by provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure where as Act is in the nature of an administrative measure for maintenance of public tranquillity and order by keeping a Goonda away from the boundaries of his operation. The second submission is also, therefore, repelled. 12. Coming to the last contention we only observe this much that the same is without substance. If a Goonda avoids notice for months and does not appear in Court, it cannot be said that the notice has become stale. If we accept the contention of the petitioner, then the Act will loose all it’s efficacy, as no Goonda will accept notice for months and then will successfully escape legal consequences. Giving such a leverage to a Goonda will frustrate the very purpose of the Act. In the case of Ballabh Chaubey this Court has held that the preamble of the Act shows it has been enacted to make special provisions for the Control and Suppression of Goondas with a view to the maintenance of Public Order. The provisions of the Act are intended to prevent further mischief by a Goonda and not to secure his conviction in a pending case. The Apex Court has already upheld the vires of the Act. The provisions of the Act are intended to prevent further mischief by a Goonda and not to secure his conviction in a pending case. The Apex Court has already upheld the vires of the Act. Further in the present case, through the impugned show cause notice dated 11.11.2008, the petitioner was required to submit his reply why an action should not be taken against him under Section 3(3) of the Goondas Act and date was fixed on 2.12.2008. The said notice was served upon the petitioner even though with oblique motive and purpose the petitioner neither submitted his reply nor had appeared on the date fixed and on the other hand kept the matter lingered on in order to derive the benefit lapse of time period. In these circumstances, in our opinion a person who is guilty of his own action cannot be given the benefit because the thing which cannot be done directly, cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. Further while taking an action under the provision of Goondas Act the authority concerned acts as a quasi judicial authority so once notice has been issued, then without taking the final decision in pursuance of the said notice the authority has got no power to issue the second notice on the same ground. 13. The petitioner has also raised a grievance that the show cause notice is mala fide and has been issued only to harass the petitioner as he is canvassing in general election. We have perused the documents which has been filed along with the present writ petition and after going through the same, we find that the said grievance of the petitioner is not borne out from the record of this petition and hence the grievance raised by the petitioner about mala fide partisan attitude of respondent is not supported by any cogent material and consequently the same is rejected. The matter is under consideration before respondent No. 2. It is open to the petitioner to satisfy respondent No. 2 that no ground has been made out for passing the order against him under Section 3 (3) of the Act. 14. For the reasons aforementioned above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition which stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. ———