Point of Law: power of the Court to hold an inquiry under section 16 on the reference made by the District Magistrate is not an empty formality, which has a purpose behind it.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 10.9.2021 and 9.12.2021, passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh in case No. 630 of 2021 (Computer Case No. 0202115090000630) State Vs. Vikas Yadav alias Guddu under Section 14 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities ( Prevention) Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1986') whereby petitioner's representation for release of his vehicle ( Truck bearing registration number UP 61AT 2942) attached under Section 14 of the Act of 1986, has been rejected.

2. Arguments are advanced on behalf of petitioner to submit that the District Magistrate has failed to take note of relevant materials on record and the scheme of the Act has not been correctly applied. It is also urged that application of mind on part of the District Magistrate is lacking which renders the orders impugned otherwise wholly arbitrary. Reliance is placed upon judgments of this Court in Badan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (43) ACC as also in Afzal Begum Vs. State of U.P. 2012 (1) ACR 456 to submit that the orders impugned are liable to be quashed.

3. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposes the prayer made in the writ petition, primarily on the ground that the petition is not maintainable, at this stage, inasmuch as the factual inquiry contemplated by the Court is yet to be undertaken and the petitioner has otherwise not exhausted the remedies available to him as per the Act of 1986. Attention of the Court has been invited to Sections 14 to 18 of the Act of 1986 in order to submit that after attachment of property is made and representation against it is rejected (as is the case here) the person aggrieved i.e. petitioner herein, has the remedy available under the Act of 1986 to approach the Court hearing cases arising out of the Act of 1986, for an appropriate order in the matter, on the basis of enquiry conducted in the matter on the issue as to whether the property in question is acquired by a gangster, from the proceeds of crime triable under the Act of 1986, or not? The determination by Court on the above question remains subject to an appeal contemplated under Section 18 of the Act of 1986 and the writ petition filed directly against the order of attachment and rejection of representation without availing the remedy before the Court concerned is not maintainable. Submission thus is that interference by the Writ Court would not be warranted at this stage, inasmuch as orders of administrative authority are yet to attain finality under the Act of 1986.

4. We have heard Sri Rahul Srivastava, advocate for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the respondents and perused the materials brought on record.

5. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced it would be worth referring to the statutory scheme contained in Sections 14 to 18 of the Act of 1986, providing for attachment and release of properties. Attachment of property is permissible under Section 14 of the Act of 1986 by the District Magistrate, where he has reason to believe that such property, whether movable or immovable, has been acquired by a gangster as a result of commissioning of offence triable under the Act of 1986. The provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure are held applicable by virtue of sub-section (2). Sub-section (3) of Section 14 contemplates appointment of an Administrator for managing the property attached under Section 14 (1) of the Act while sub-section (4) of Section 14 provides for police help to the Administrator for proper and effective administration of such property. Any person aggrieved by attachment of property under Section 14 is entitled to make a representation against the order of attachment, under sub Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act of 1986, showing the circumstances and the sources by which such property was acquired to dislodge the opinion formed by the administrative authority that the property has b