The two petitions re late to two different proceedings but were heard together as certain common ques tions of law were raised by Sri D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners in the first mentioned case and Sri U. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in the second mentioned case. We had heard Sri Amarjeet Singh, learned AGA for the State in both the cases.

2. In Writ Petition No. 3983 of 1999 an action under Section 14 of the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) by the District Magistrate, Bareilly is under question whereby the District Magistrate directed attachment of certain properties indicated in the order, dated 30-6-1999 under the purported exercise of his powers under Section 14 of the said Act.

3. In the Writ Petition No. 3669 of 1999 also an action purporting to be under Section 14 of the Act as taken by the Dis trict Magistrate, Allahabad, has been under challenge.

4. Although the learned counsel for the parties raised a point touching the vires of Section 14 of the Act as violative of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it was contended on behalf of the Slate that the const

Click Here to Read the rest of this document