Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

INTEZAR AHMAD versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECYR. HOME AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Intezar Ahmad v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secyr. Home And Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 5098 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7622 (25 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 36

                    Crl. Misc. Writ Petition no. 5098 of  2007

Intezar Ahmad . . . . . . .  . . ..  .  . . .  . .   . . . . . . . .  .  Petitioner.

                                 Versus

District Magistrate, Firozabad  and others  .  . .  . . .  Respondents.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

        ----

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

This is a writ petition   against show cause notice 16.3.2007  under section 3 of the U.P. Control of Gundas Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A for the respondents.

The question of validity of the  notice under the above Act has been considered  by two Full Benches  of this Court   in  'Ramji Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others' 1981(2) Cr.L.J.  1083 and 'B.S. Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and others ' 1999(39) ACC 34. In these cases notices were quashed  on the ground that the notices did not provide  general nature of the material allegations against the petitioners. The notice in the present case is similar to the notices  that were  quashed  by the Full  Benches.

In view of the reasons given in the Full Bench decisions, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 16.3.2007 ( Annexure no.1 to the writ petition ) is  quashed. However, it will be open to the respondents to proceed a fresh after giving fresh notice to the petitioner in accordance with law.

Dated:25.4.2007

RPP.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.