Show Cause Notice Containing Specific Allegations and General Reputation Complies With Goondas Act and Rules.

The petitioner challenged a show-cause notice dated 20.03.2026 issued by the District Magistrate (Judicial), Unnao, under Section 3 of The Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970.

The petitioner alleged the notice was issued without jurisdiction and in violation of Rule 3 of the 1970 Rules.

The writ petition was filed on 30.06.2026—approximately 100 days after the notice was issued—without indicating the date of service or filing an explanation/reply to the notice.

The notice originated from a report by the SHO, P.S. Safipur, sent through the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate.

1. Whether the impugned show-cause notice was invalid due to a violation of Rule 3(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Rules, 1970.

2. Whether the notice was a nullity for failing to contain specific allegations as per the Full Bench mandate in In Re: Ramji Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

3. Whether the petitioner’s delay and failure to provide service details affected the maintainability of the writ.

Section 3 of The Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970, and Rule 3(1) of the 1970 Rules, which mandates that action is generally taken upon written information from the Superintendent of Police, a Sub-divisional Magistrate, or two respectable citizens.

The doctrine derived from In Re: Ramji Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1981 SCC Online All 305), which established that a notice must contain specific allegations of criminal acts rather than a mere list of FIRs to avoid being declared a nullity.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s procedural challenge, noting that while Rule 3(1) requires information from the Superintendent of Police (SP), a report initiated by an SHO and forwarded through the SP satisfies the "letter and spirit" of the law.

On the merits of the notice, the Court distinguished this case from Ramji Pandey, finding that the impugned notice included specific descriptions of the petitioner's criminal acts and general reputation in paragraphs 'Ka' and 'Kha', in addition to listing four specific cases in paragraph 'Ga'.

The Court viewed the petitioner's 100-day delay and failure to disclose the date of service or file a departmental explanation as evidence of a lack of bona fide grievance.

The petition was dismissed in limine as misconceived, finding no merit in the jurisdictional challenge and determining that the procedural requirements of the Goondas Act had been duly followed.