HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 932 of 2026 Lalit Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents Present:- Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Advocate through video conferencing and Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder for the State. Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The petitioner has challenged the Constitutional validity of Section 3 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (“the Act”) and the Rules made thereunder on the ground that they are ultra-vires of the Constitution of India. The challenge has also been made to the order under Section 3 of the Act, dated 13.05.2026, passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar, in Case No. 75 of 2026, State Vs. Lalit Kumar (“the case”), The petitioner has also challenged the press release allegedly issued on 15.05.2026 by the respondent no.4. The press release (Annexure 4) simply communicates the result of the order dated 13.05.2026, by which, order under Section 3(3) of the Act has been passed in the case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the writ petition should be entertained for such relief because an order passed under Section 3 of the Act could be challenged in the appeal in view of Section 6 of 2 the Act. He submits that in appeal, the prayer no. 4 cannot be granted, which relates to the quashing of the press release. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the Constitutional validity of the Act has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Raja Sukhnandan Vs. State of U.P., 1972 Supreme (All) 75. He would submit that the order passed under Section 3 of the Act is appealable under Section 6 of the Act. 5. In fact, in the case of Raja Sukhnandan (supra), the challenge was made to the Constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, which challenge was not accepted by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. We do not propose to entertain another petition at this state challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Act. 6. An order has been passed against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act, which can be appealed against under Section 6 of the Act. There is a statutory remedy provided for it. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that there is no reason to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. (Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 25.05.2026 Jitendra