The Commissioner loses authority to decide on a representation once a reference to the competent court is made under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents.

THE CHALLENGE

2. The petitioner, a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and functioning as a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), is primarily engaged in the business of financing vehicles and has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 20.09.2024 whereby the Commissioner/ Special Court, Acquisition of Crime Generated Property, Commissionerate of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar, has rejected the representation dated 24.05.2024 filed by the petitioner under Section 15(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act, 1986'). By the said representation, prayer was made that vehicles financed by the petitioner-company to one JSR Roadlines (borrower) be released in favour of the petitioner.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. As per record, a first information report was registered against one Rajkumar under Section 2/3(1) of the Act, 1986. During the investigation proceedings, it was found that a company, namely, M/s Eskon Exports Private Limited was established by one Ravi Kana, a gang was operational and properties were acquired by gangster Rajkumar by illegally earned money and Rajkumar was appointed as Director and was, later on, made share-holder of the said company. On 15.08.2018, a plot was purchased in the name of the company, whereat one M/s Prime Pressing Tools Private Limited Company was operating. Seven (7) vehicles were financed by the petitioner- company pursuant to seven different agreements, wherein one Ravindra Singh stood as a guarantor and the said vehicles were parked inside the premises operated by M/s Prime Pressing Tools Private Limited. The record further reveals that a police report was prepared on 03.02.2024 with regard to the property acquired by Rajkumar, whereafter an attachment order was passed on 09.02.2024 by the Commissionerate of Police, Gautam Budhnagar under Section 14(1) of the Act, 1986. Following movable and immovable properties were attached under the said order:-

"(a) M/s. Eskon Exports Pvt. Ltd. Company HDFC Bank account number 502000076825503 with amount deposited in Rs.212356/-

(b) Plot number D-116 in Ecotech 12 of 4000 sq. meter whose current value is Rs.220000000/- which is in the name of M/s Eskon Exports Pvt. Ltd. Company, and (c) Residential Plot 1735 square feet on which at present Building Flat No. B1/1838 Tower 10, GH- 05, Sector- CHI V Greater Noida, whose present value is Rs. 6300000/-"

4. It is alleged that multiple defaults were committed towards discharge of financial liability arising out of loan facility availed by the borrower and when the authorised representative of the petitioner company visited the premises of the borrower on 15.04.2024, the petitioner acquired knowledge about the seizure of seven vehicles parked inside the premises of M/s Prime Pressing Tools Private Limited. The petitioner preferred a representation dated 24.05.2024 before the Commissioner seeking release of the vehicles in question. The same has been rejected by the order impugned dated 20.09.2024.

PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE

5. The matter was earlier heard on 17.02.2025, on which date, Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from arguing that the vehicles were not attached under the attachment order dated 09.02.2024 and, therefore, the Commissioner was not justified in refusing to release the vehicles, raised a legal submission to the effect that under the Act of 1986, Commissioner is not vested with the power to reject a release application/ representation. Submission was that whenever a representation under Section 15 is made seeking release of the property attached, the Authority can either release the property or, if he is of the opinion that release cannot be ordered, he is obliged to refer the matter with his r