Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19377-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23239 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Bindu Devi Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Aadil Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Zeeshan Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents. 2. Smt. Bindu Devi w/o Nilamber Jha has approached this Court interalia with the following reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Hapur in Case No.115 of 2024(State vs. Alok Kumar Jha) under Section 14(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Hapur to allow the petitioner for the temporary use of the house being the only place of accommodation. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing concerned respondents to allow petitioner to reside in her property till the pendency of the present writ petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that earlier the petitioner along with her husband approached this Court for questioning the validity of order dated 29.02.2024 passed under section 14(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 19861 in a writ petition being Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.4276 of 2024 (Smt. Bindu Devi and another vs. State of U.P. and others). Vide order dated 20.03.2024, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a 1 in short ‘Act, 1986’ CMWP No..-23239 of 2024 Smt. Bindu Dei vs. State Of U.P. & Ors Coordinate Bench with an observation that in case the petitioner files an application for release of the property in question under section 15 of the Act, 1986 before the District Magistrate, Hapur, the same shall be considered in accordance with law within a period of two months, thereafter for a period of three months the petitioners shall not be evicted from the property involved in the case. Learned counsel states that even though the said order was passed on 20.03.2024 on account of unavoidable circumstances, appropriate application could not be filed under Section 15(1) of the Act, 1986. He next contended that while passing impugned order dated 23.09.2024, the competent authority has failed to acknowledge the order dated 20.03.2024 passed earlier by this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.4276 of 2024. Therefore, he prayed that the instant writ petition is liable to be entertained and the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, Sri Malviya, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the writ petition and stated that Act, 1986 itself is a self contained Act. He further submitted that a full fledged mechanism is provided under the Act, 1986. Section 14 talks about attachment of property and even the person who is aggrieved by attachment of property, can file an appropriate application in case he/she claims stake in the property in question. Release of property is contemplated under Section 15(1) of the Act, 1986 wherein it is provided that where any property is attached under section 14, the claimant thereof may within three months from the date of knowledge or such attachment can make a representation to the District Magistrate showing the circumstances in and the sources by which such property was acquired by him. He states that in the instant matter even though the property in question was attached way back on 01.02.2024 and the petitioner had herself instituted a Crl. Misc. Writ 2 CMWP No..-23239 of 2024 Smt. Bindu Dei vs. State Of U.P. & Ors Petition No.4276 of 2024, on account of alternative efficacious remedy the Court has given leverage to the petitioner to move an application under Section 15(1) of the Act, 1986 and has accorded interim relief to the effect that the petitioners shall not be evicted from the property involved in the case for three months. Admittedly, no such effort has been made in the light of Section 15(1) of the Act, 1986 for moving an application wherein she could stake claim in the property in question before the District Magistrate, Hapur. While passing order on 23.09.2024, which is impugned in this petitioner, the District Magistrate, Hapur has confirmed the order dated 01.02.2024 with a detailed observation to the effect that inspite of statutory period no other claimant had turned up in the said proceedings to claim any stake in the property in question. In case, it is the competent authority to process such claim in accordance with law specially in the light of the provisions under section 15(1) of the Act, 1986. In such situation, the petitioner cannot claim that order dated 23.09.2024 is unsustainable wherein the District Magistrate has proceeded to observe that in spite of statutory period, no party has turned up in the said proceedings to question the validity of order dated 01.02.2024 even though it was subject matter of challenge in the earlier round of litigation. In absence thereof, any claim, which could be opposed on the basis of right, no party can claim right over the property which is attached in the gangsters proceedings. Later on, as per the mandate of Section 16(1) of the Act, 1986 when no representation is made within the period specified in sub-section (2) of Section 15 before the District Magistrate does not release the property under sub-section(1) of Section 15. He shall refer the matter with his report to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under this Act. He states that once an exhaustive procedure is provided therein in the Act, the petitioner is 3 CMWP No..-23239 of 2024 Smt. Bindu Dei vs. State Of U.P. & Ors totally at fault in view of the fact that earlier he has approached this Court questioning the validity of order dated 01.02.2024 and relief was accorded by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.03.2024. Inspite of said interim order, no such serious efforts had been made by the petitioner to claim or stake in the property in question under the Act, 1986. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Before proceeding further, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant sections of the Act, 1986 for ready reference:- “14. Attachment of property.-(1) If the District Magistrate has reason to believe that any property, whether moveable or immovable, in possession of any person has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, he may order attachment of such property whether or not cognizance of such offence has been taken by any Court. (2) The provisions of the Code shall, mutatis mutandis apply to every such attachment. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Code the District Magistrate may appoint an Administrator of any property attached under sub-section (1) and the Administrator shall have all the powers to administer such property in the best interest thereof. (4) The District Magistrate may provide police help to the Administrator for proper and effective administration of such property. 15. Release of property.-(1) Where any property is attached under Section 14, the claimant thereof may within three months from the date of knowledge of such attachment make a representation to the District Magistrate showing the circumstances in and the sources by which such property was acquired by him. (2) If the District Magistrate is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made under sub-section (1) he shall forthwith release the property from attachment and 4 CMWP No..-23239 of 2024 Smt. Bindu Dei vs. State Of U.P. & Ors thereupon such property shall be made over to the claimant. 16. Inquiry into the character of acquisition of property by court.-(1) Where no representation is made within the period specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15 or the District Magistrate does not release the property under sub-section (2) of Section 15 he shall refer the matter with his report to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under this Act. (2) Where the District Magistrate has refused to attach any property under sub-section (1) of Section 14 or has ordered for release of any property under sub-section (2) of Section 15, the State Government or any person aggrieved by such refusal or release may make an application to the Court referred to in sub-section (1) for inquiry as to whether the property was acquired by or as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act. Such Court may, if it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of justice so to do, order attachment of such property.” 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner along with her husband has invoked writ jurisdiction by preferring Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.4276 of 2024 (Smt. Bindu Devi and another vs. State of U.P. and others). Division Bench vide order dated 20.03.2024 has proceeded to dispose of the petition with following observations:- “Under such circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, it is being directed that if the petitioners file an application for release of the property under Section 15 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986 before the District Magistrate-Hapur the same shall be considered in accordance with law within a period of two months, thereafter, and for a period of three months the petitioners shall not be evicted from the property involved in the case.” 8. Admittedly, at this stage the petitioner and her husband were well conversant with the facts that the Division Bench has already passed an order on 20.03.2024 and in case they had any stake in the property in question they would have moved an application within two months’ time. 5 CMWP No..-23239 of 2024 Smt. Bindu Dei vs. State Of U.P. & Ors Admittedly, no such effort has been made or any representation/application was moved in the said proceeding, even though interim relief was accorded upto three months. The respondents were also restrained not to evict the petitioner from the property involved in the case. The said order was never challenged by the State and for all practical purposes, the order has attained finality. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not having any knowledge about order dated 20.03.2024. Once, the Division Bench itself has mandated the petitioner to invoke remedy as contemplated under Section 15(1) of the Act, 1986, and in such situation in case the petitioner has not turned up in the said proceeding even though he has enjoyed the interim relief granted vide order dated 20.03.2024 and consequently, the competent authority has proceeded to pass order dated 23.09.2024, in such a situation, we are of the considered opinion there is no infirmity or illegality in order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Hapur whereby he has referred the matter to the competent court below. 9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order dated 23.09.2024 does not warrant any interference. The writ petition sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. Suffice to indicate that even though after passing the impugned order, the petitioner is not bereft of remedy and he can press appropriate relief before the competent court under Section 16(2) of the Act, 1986. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 Manish Himwan 6 Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad