Gore Lal vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju and K.N. Sinha JJ.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.

Petitioner is challenging the show cause notice u/s 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act.

Learned Counsel relies upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in Imaran alias Abdul Quddus Khan v. State of UP. and Ors. Crl. M.W.P. No. 7111 of 1999, decided on 30.11.1999, in 1999 (3) ACrR 2733: 2000 (1) ACJ 108, and also upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bhim Sain Tyagi v. State of U.P. 1999 (2) ACrR 1286 (FB) : 1999 UPCR 417 and Ramji Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1981 ACR 244 (FB) : (1982) UP CrR 1 (FB).

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has held in Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others, , 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.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Full Bench decisions in Bhim Sain Tyagi v. State of U.P. 1999 (2) ACR 1286 (FB) : 1999 UP CrR 417 ; Ramji Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1981 ACR 244 (FB) : (1982) UP CrR 1 (FB) and the Division Bench decision in Imaran alias Abdul Quddus Khan v. State of U.P. and Ors., cases 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.

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 u/s 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.

This petition is dismissed at this stage.