The Allahabad High Court has directed the Ghazipur District Magistrate to take a decision in two weeks on the application of Mukhtar Ansari’s son Abbas Ansari to appoint administrators for the rented/ leased shops on the attached land.
The division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Raj Beer Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Writ Petition filed by Rajendra Prasad Agrawal.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s application dated 22.12.2021 praying for permission to work the leased shops in the property under dispute, has been rejected by order dated 13.04.2022.
That order is referable to an earlier direction issued by the writ court dated 14.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc Writ Petition No1620 of 2022 (Rajendra Prasad Agrawal And 4 Others Vs State of U.P And 3 Others).
The Court said that there is no dispute to the fact that the state authorities are treating the property described in earlier order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the District Magistrate as attached under Section 14(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
The petitioners claimed that they are not gangsters. They are not included in the list of members of gang pertaining to Abbas Ansari, who is being proceeded against, treating him to be a gangster under the Act.
The petitioners further plead, insofar as they are merely tenants of the said Abbas Ansari, they cannot be deprived of their right to use the leased premises, subject to compliance with the law. Here, referring to Section 14(3) of the Act, it has been submitted that the District Magistrate is wholly competent to appoint an administrator with respect to the above described property who may administer the said property by keeping a proper account, collecting rent etc.
The Court noted,
While it may not be disputed that such power exists under the Act, the application made by the petitioners was misdirected. They never sought appointment of an administrator. Rather they claimed a right to open the shops. The impugned order is equally misdirected, inasmuch as, the District Magistrate has missed the main issue pertaining to his power to appoint an administrator and has rejected the application as not maintainable.
In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit, at this stage.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that in case the petitioners approach the District Magistrate for appointment of an administrator in terms of Section 14(3) of the Act, the said application may be dealt with on its own merit, in accordance with law, such that appropriate order regarding appointment of administrator may be passed, within a period of two weeks from the date of application being filed, without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order and the order dated 13.04.2022.
“Unless reasonable grounds exist, the power to appoint administrators may be exercised, keeping in mind the fact that valuable rights of third parties/common citizens may be affected by the attachment order. They may neither be members of the gang of the person whose property is being proceeded against nor they may be criminals. Rather, they may turn out to be hard working citizens who may be suffering on account of the fact that the property was owned by the gangster.
In those circumstances, the interest of justice may be balanced adequately by appointment of a proper Executive Officer to act as the administrator who may keep proper account of the property including charging and collection of rent and ensuring that the same is used for lawful purposes only,” the order reads.