Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11728 (ALL)

VINAY YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

CRLP/1555/2025 · 2025-02-13

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Vipin Chandra Dixit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20596-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1555 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinay Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Charan Tripathi,V.K. Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.P.Singh, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent. 2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order impugned dated 19.10.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur in Case No. 2985 of 2023, Computerised Case No. D202305310002985 (State v. Vinay Yadav) under Section 14(1) U.P.Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Jhagaha, District Gorakhpur (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 3. At the very outset, Sri G.P.Singh raised an objection that U.P.Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short "Act, 1986) is a self-contained Act. Against the order impugned, the petitioner has got efficacious remedy under Section 15(1) of the Act, 1986 within 90 days from the date of order but till date the petitioner has not setup any claim and admittedly, the said period has also expired. 4. Confronted with this, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that he is not inclined to press the writ petition. However, in the interest of justice, leave may be accorded to the petitioner to setup claim/right as contemplated u/s 15(1) of the Act, 1986. 5. In the facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction that in case any such application/representation is being preferred by the petitioner within two weeks from today, the Authority concerned would proceed to decide the same on its own merit expeditiously ignoring the delay and laches in filing the same. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 A.K.Srivastava Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad