The Allahabad High Court refused to grant relief in the matter of attachment of property of Srimati Maya Devi Smarak Siksha Samiti in Gangster Act proceedings and the petition of the college management committee.
The Division Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Srimati Maya Devi Smarak Siksha Samiti.
The petition filed by the Manager of Srimati Maya Devi Smarak Siksha Samiti, seeks quashing of the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Registrar, Professor Rajendra Singh Rajju Bhaiya University, Prayagraj.
The second relief claimed is a mandamus directing the respondents to make necessary arrangements for studies of the students of the institution after opening the lock put on the institution so that they may complete their studies.
The Petition is by two persons who allege to be students of Srimati Maya Devi Smarak Siksha Samiti and the petition seeks a mandamus directing respondent nos 2 and 3 to make available necessary facilities for study of the students by opening the lock put on the institution.
An FIR dated 16.08.2020 was registered giving rise to Case under Section 3/2 of the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Adyogik Kshetra, District-Prayagraj against gang leader Dilip Mishra and his gang members, namely, Shubham Mishra, Neeraj Singh @ Akand Pratap Singh @ Karam Singh @ Anu Pandey.
The District Magistrate, Prayagraj attached the property owned by the accused i.e, the institution, namely, Srimati Maya Devi Smarka Siksha Samiti/Maya Devi Smarak Sikshan Avam Prasikshan Sansthan, Maya Devi Smarak Vidhi Mahavidalaya, Pura Pandey, Post TSL Naini vide order dated 30.08.2020 under Section 14(1) of the Act.
In compliance with the said order, the institution was locked from outside on 11.09.2020 and the attachment order was pasted on the wall of the institution.
It is contended by R. K Ojha that the institution in question is managed by a registered society. If one member of such a registered society has been booked under the provisions of the Gangsters Act, the institution, as a whole, cannot be attached.
The District Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act by his order dated 30.08.2020 has attached the institution treating it to be a private property of an individual. The application filed under Section 15 of the Act on 27.10.2020 for release of this property has not been decided till date.
The petitioner, therefore, was forced to file the Petition. This petition was disposed of with the observation that in view of the Section 14(3) of the Act, it was incumbent upon the District Magistrate to ensure the appointment of an administrator of the attached institution.
Consequent to the said order of the High Court, an administrator has been appointed, vide order dated 11.08.2022.
The administrator sought directions regarding enrollment and examinations of the next session. In response to the letter of the administrator dated 01.10.2022, the Registrar, Professor Rajendra Singh Rajju Bhaiya University, Prayagraj replied that the students of the institution, which had been attached and sealed under orders of the District Magistrate under Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act, be transferred to other institutions.
The Petitioner in Petition, the Manager of Srimati Maya Devi Smarak Shiksha Samiti is primarily aggrieved by the transfer of students to another institution.
It has been submitted that no such provision exists under the State Universities Act. Moreover, once the recognition of the institution is in existence, the students therefrom cannot be transferred to another institution.
It is also submitted that the institution is a private self financed institution and in case the students are transferred, the institution itself will be destroyed.
It is lastly submitted that Section 14(3) of the Act empowers the District Magistrate for appointment of an administrator to administer property attached under Section 14(1) of the Act, however, this power does not mean that the administrator is entitled to take steps which would lead to the destruction of the institution itself.
Manish Goyal, Additional Advocate General has submitted that the representation made by the petitioner on 27.10.2020 has not been placed on record. Impugned in the writ petition is the order dated 14.10.2022 to the petition. This order is a consequential order and has been passed, as per the directions issued by the Vice Chancellor on 13.10.2022, which order is not under challenge.
He has also submitted that during physical inspection of the institution, no laboratories etc., were found to be in existence and, therefore, in the interest of students, directions were issued for their transfer to other institutions.
It is also submitted that the students of the institution have not come forward challenging their transfer to other institutions. On the strength of the afore-noted submission, it has been submitted that the institution was running on paper alone.
It is also submitted on behalf of the State that this petition is by two LLB students seeking a direction for opening of lock of the institution. This petition is nothing but sponsored litigation and in any case, the petition has been filed prior to the passing of the impugned order transferring the students to other institutions which is not under challenge in this Petition. Under the circumstances, therefore, this petition has for all practical purposes, been rendered infructuous.
From the submissions noted above, the following two issues are up for consideration. First, the illegality or otherwise of the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Registrar, Professor Rajendra Singh Rajju Bhaiya University, Prayagraj. The second issue for consideration is whether the representation filed by the petitioner under section 15(1) of the Gangsters Act has been decided or not, the Court said.
“Perusal of the order dated 14.10.2022 clearly reveals that it is a consequential order passed in compliance with the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the Vice Chancellor. This fact finds a mention in the order dated 14.10.2022. Neither the order dated 13.10.2022 has been filed on record nor is the same under challenge in this writ petition. The order dated 14.10.20222 being a consequential order, the same cannot be interfered with till such time, the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University is challenged and set aside.
Under the circumstances, the order dated 14.10.2022, a consequential order cannot be faulted. A writ of certiorari for quashing of this order, therefore cannot be issued.
Insofar as the second issue, as to whether the representation filed by the petitioner under section 15(1) of the Act has been decided or not. It would be relevant to note that this representation is admittedly dated 27.10.2020. Yet another representation was made by the petitioner on 03.08.2022 after the decision in Petition.
From bare perusal to the petition, which is the order passed by the District Magistrate on 11.08.2022. It is clear that both these representations stand decided by this order. Since the representation dated 27.10.2020 filed by the petitioner has not been annexed with the writ petition, it cannot be gainfully argued that the same has not been decided by the order dated 11.08.2022.
All other submissions made at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner are inconsequential because the main order that required challenge, namely, the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 13.10.2022 is neither on record nor under challenge.
Under the circumstances, addressing all other arguments raised by the petitioner would be a purely academic exercise.
In view of the foregoing, and since the two issues which arise for consideration in the writ petition have been decided against the petitioner, the writ petition fails”, the Court observed while dismissing the petitions.