Disposed

Maroof Anwar Hashmi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2023/8606/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged property attachment under the U.P. Gangster Act via writ petition. Court directed the District Magistrate to decide the pending representation on merits within one month without examining case merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed District Magistrate to decide the pending representation within one month from the date of submitting a certified copy of this order.

Maroof Anwar Hashmi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:73362-DB

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8606 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Maroof Anwar Hashmi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Umesh Chandra Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed by the appellants seeking the following reliefs:-

¶8

"1. Issue writ order or command in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.04.2022 passed by O.P. No. 2 U/S 14 (1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Act by means of which he has ordered to attach the property of the petitioner which is admittedly situated on ancestral property of the petitioner, as the order hass been passed in violation of the Rules framed in this regard, in the interest of justice.

¶9

2. Issue writ order or command in the nature of mandamus commanding O. P. No. 2 to take a decision on the representation filed against the order dated 26.04.2022 pending before him since 13.06.2022 at an early date and preferably on the next date fixed by him."

¶10

The property alleged to be that of the petitioners has been attached under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The petitioners have already represented against the same under Section 15 of the Act, 1986, as claimed.

¶11

If it is so, then, the District Magistrate is duty bound to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law.

¶12

Let the District Magistrate concerned decide the representation of the petitioners, if they have been submitted, in accordance with law unless it is already decided. If it has been decided the decision shall be communicated to the petitioners

¶13

within one week. If it has not been decided then the same shall be decided within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations and without entering into merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 7.11.2023 R.K.P.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Maroof Anwar Hashmi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maroof Anwar Hashmi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Mukund Vs Union of India through Secy. Ministry of Personnel and Others

Ram Jage and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Aftab Ansai Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Ram Sewak

Mohan Lal Gupta and Another. Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 5 Others