HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6304 of 2026 Court No. - 43 HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J. A supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record. Heard Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Indra Bhan Yadav, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Vikash Goswami, AGA for the State. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is against the orders dated 17.02.2026 and 17.06.2023 passed by the respondent no.2, i.e., District Magistrate, Saharanpur in Case No.03 of 2026 registered under Section 14 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The claim of the petitioner is that the property of the petitioner attached through the aforesaid orders was purchased from his own income and was not a property which could be covered under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act. We are not entering into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner as during the argument, the counsel for the petitioner stated that he shall file a representation under Section 15 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 before the District Magistrate and prays that an order be passed directing the District Magistrate to decide the same. Sri Manish Goyal, the Additional Advocate General has no objections to the aforesaid prayer. The representation has to be filed against the order dated 17.02.2026 as the petitioner states that a representation has already been filed against the order dated 17.06.2023. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Indra Bhan Yadav, Vijay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mohd Afzal .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) It is the apprehension of the petitioner that the District Magistrate may auction the property attached by order dated 17.02.2026. In support of his apprehension, the petitioner has annexed an order dated 04.04.2026 issued by the Deputy District Magistrate, Behat, District Saharanpur which notifies auction of the fruits of the Mango Grove allegedly owned by the petitioner and which is part of the property mentioned in the different orders passed under Section 14 of the Act as noted above. There is no prohibition on the District Magistrate or the Administrator appointed by him under Section 14 of the Act for sale of standing crops / fruits in any grove as the same are perishable items but the Administrator shall act in accordance with law and maintain the accounts of the sale proceeds. It is clarified that U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 does not permit the State to auction any immovable property attached under Section 14 of the Act. As the Additional Advocate General has no objections to the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, the petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner files a representation under Section 15 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the District Magistrate, Saharanpur shall decide the same in accordance with law, expeditiously. So far as the apprehension regarding auction of the property by the petitioner is concerned, the observation regarding the same has already been made above. The writ petition is disposed of. May 6, 2026 Sanjeet CRLP No. 6304 of 2026 2 (Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad