# Ajmat Ullah Ansari & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1951
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-06
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 11080 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajmat-ullah-ansari-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-51590
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioner challenged the
Assistant District Election Officer order for
release of sum of Rs. 6,60,200/-the
petitioners are doing money transfer
service through net banking as a subagent under the authority given by RBIThe police officers seized the the said
amount which was to be disbursed to 36
persons-list of 36 persons were provided
by the petitioners but the respondents
have
not
placed
any
documents
or
evidence which suggest that the seized
cash was to be used in the process of
panchayat election illegally-More so, the
though cash was seized but surprisingly in
that regard no FIR has been lodged nor
following
the
statutory
provisions
of
section 102 of CrPC, hence the court found
that there is fault with the police officers
and declare the action bad-Respondent
no.3 is directed to release the seized cash
to the petitioners.(Para 1 to 22)

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Ajmat Ullah Ansari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1951
rd os izkFkhZ@oknh dks tcfj;k iz'uxr
oknh; Hkwfe mijksDr ls dCts ls csn[ky u djsa] rFkk
tcfj;k fuekZ.k u djsa vkSj ekSds dh ;FkkfLFkr cuk;s
j[ksA ftlls izkFkZh dks mfpr U;k; fey lds] d`ik
gksxhA"
25. The effect of the prayer, quoted
above, sought in the application seeking
interim relief is to maintaining status-quo
till the disposal of the suit filed under
Section 116 of the Code of 2006.

26. As per the averments made in
the
application
the
defendant/Rahul
Agarwal in the suit was adamant to forcibly
dispossess the petitioner from the property
in question and to raise construction over
the same, and in view thereof an order
directing status-quo was required.

27. The prayer sought in the
application seeking interim relief, quoted
above, also indicates that the same is not
for grant of a stay order to any court or
authority. The order dated 04.08.2023
passed on the application seeking interim
relief preferred by the petitioner indicates
that the parties to the proceedings were
directed to maintain status-quo. The
operative portion of the order dated
04.08.2023 reads as under:-

"न्यायालय पर० उ०प्र० राजस्व सांवहिा 2006 की
िारा 116 के अन्िगाि बांटवारे का वाि ववचारािीन है। न्यायवहि में
ग्राम रूकनापुर वस्थि भूवम की गाटा सां० 1086/0.020हे०,
1085/0.0056 हे०, 1084/0.057हे0 व गाटा सां0
1087/0.304 हे0 व गाटा सां० 1079 वम0 / 0.005हे0,
1079वम० / 0.005 हे0 व 1079वम0 / 0.009हे० गाटा
सांख्या 1079 कुल क्षेत्रफल 0.019हे0 पर न्यायालय में वाि
ववचारािीन रहिे उभय पक्षों को वनिेवर्शि वकया जािा है वक मौके पर
यथावस्थि बनाये रखें। पत्रावली विनाांक 01.09.2023 को पेर्श
हो।"

27. It would be apt to indicate that
a prayer to direct the parties to maintain
status-quo during the pendency of the suit
is an injunctive relief.

28. In the instant case, the interim
order
directing
the
parties
to
the
proceedings to maintain status-quo was
passed ex-parte on 04.08.2023 and, as such,
the order dated 04.08.2023 would fall
under Rule(s) 1 & 2 of Order 39 of C.P.C.
Thus, to the view of this Court, the appeal
under Section 207 of the Code of 2006
would
lie
against
the
order
dated
04.08.2023 and being so challenging the
order dated 04.08.2023 the revision filed
under Section 210 of the Code of 2006 was
not maintainable.

29. Accordingly, for the reasons
aforesaid, the impugned order dated
24.08.2023 passed in Revision No. 1201 of
2023,
Computerized
Case
No.C202308000001201 (Rahul Agarwal
vs. Ritesh Agarwal) by the respondent
No.1-Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal,
Gonda, is hereby set aside.

30. The petition is allowed. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1951
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA,J.

Writ-C No. 11080 of 2023

Ajmat Ullah Ansari & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
1952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Dadu Ram Shukla (D.R. Shukla), Krishna Kumar
Tiwari, Manoj Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C., Rohit Tripathi

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioner challenged the
Assistant District Election Officer order for
release of sum of Rs. 6,60,200/-the
petitioners are doing money transfer
service through net banking as a subagent under the authority given by RBIThe police officers seized the the said
amount which was to be disbursed to 36
persons-list of 36 persons were provided
by the petitioners but the respondents
have
not
placed
any
documents
or
evidence which suggest that the seized
cash was to be used in the process of
panchayat election illegally-More so, the
though cash was seized but surprisingly in
that regard no FIR has been lodged nor
following
the
statutory
provisions
of
section 102 of CrPC, hence the court found
that there is fault with the police officers
and declare the action bad-Respondent
no.3 is directed to release the seized cash
to the petitioners.(Para 1 to 22)

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Chandra Kishor Jha Vs Mahavir Prasad &
ors. (1999) 8 SCC 266

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,
J.)

(1) The challenge in the present
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is the order dated 11th
July, 2023 passed by the Assistant District
Election Officer, District Office (Panchayat
and Nagariya Nikay), Gonda (respondent
no.3),
whereby
representation
dated
06.06.2023 preferred by the petitioners for
release of sum of Rs.6,60,200/-, which was
seized during the Three-tier Panchayat
General Election, 2021 from Vehicle No.
UP-32-FP-4674
(Eco
Sport
Ford)
belonging to the petitioners on 01.04.2021,
has been rejected.

(2) In nutshell, the facts of the case
are that petitioners are the real brothers.
Petitioner No.1-Ajmat Ullah Ansari, who is
the sub-agent of Instant Global Money
Transfer Private Limited, bearing license
No.
F.E.C.G.F.M.C.088/2005
dated
30.09.2005 M.T.S.S. License No. E.C.C.O.
E.P.D./995/22624/9899 dated 30.03.1999,
deals with the transfer of money. The said
license was issued on 30.04.2005 and
continued till 31.05.2018 and the same was
renewed from time to time under the
condition stipulated by the Reserve bank of
India. On 10.10.2018, the name of the
company was changed and renewed upto
31.06.2021 and thereafter it has again been
renewed till 31.06.2024.

(3) It is the case of the petitioners
that during the last phase of March, 2021
for five days, bank was closed. The
petitioners had to deliver a sum of
Rs.7,57,340/- to 36 account holders, details
of such persons have been enclosed as
Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. For this
purpose, the petitioner no.1 had transferred
a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from HDFC Bank
Account No. 50200006369820 (IFSC Code
No. HDFC003765) through his colleague,
namely, Shahid, who runs National Mobile
Travels Agency Jamunia Bagh, Gonda and
the said money was transferred to Account
No.051505500857
to
Branch
Gonda.
According
to
the
petitioners,
on
01.04.2021, after withdrawing the said
amount, they were going to deliver the
same to 36 persons from their Vehicle No.
UP-32-FP-4674 (Eco Sport Ford). In the
way, local police of Police Station
Dhanepur, District Gonda had intercepted
3 All. Ajmat Ullah Ansari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1953
them and found a bag containing said
amount of Rs.6,60,200/-. Immediately
thereafter, the petitioners had produced the
documentary evidence before the police,
but the local police was not satisfied with
the documentary evidence and as such, the
bag containing the aforesaid amount was
seized. Thereafter, as per report of Station
Officer of Police Station Dhanepur, Gonda,
the aforesaid amount was deposited in
Government Treasury with sealed pack at
serial No.730 dated 03.04.2021. Thereafter,
on
06.06.2023,
they
preferred
a
representation to the District Election
Officer (Panchayat and Nagariya), Gonda,
which was rejected vide order dated
11.07.2023.
It
is
this
order
dated
11.07.2023, which has been challenged in
the instant writ petition.

(4) Heard Shri Dadu Ram Shukla,
learned
Counsel
representing
the
petitioners,
learned
Standing
Counsel
representing the State/respondents no.1, 2,
5, 6 and 7 and Shri Rohit Shukla, learned
Counsel representing the respondents no.3
and 4.

(5) Learned Counsel representing
the petitioners has submitted that vide
Master Circular No. 14/2011-12 (updated
as on March 22, 2012) dated 01.07.2011,
the Reserve Bank of India has issued
Master Circular on Money Transfer Service
Scheme
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'MTSS'). As per clause 3 of the aforesaid
Circular,
this
Circular
would
stand
withdrawn on July 1, 2012 and will be
replaced by an updated Master Circular on
the subject. The guidelines was issued in
two parts i.e. Part-A and Part-B. Under
Part-A, Section-I deals with Guidelines for
Permitting Indian Agents and MTSS,
whereas Section II deals with guidelines for
overseas Principals and Section III deals
with Guidelines for appointment of SubAgents by Indian Agents, which is relevant
and reads as under :-

"Section III
Guidelines for appointment of SubAgents by Indian Agents
The Indian Agent may appoint SubAgents who have place of business and a
minimum net worth of Rs.5 lakh. The SubAgents should operate through the Indian
Agents and should not deal directly with
the Overseas Principal. The Sub-Agents
should act on the payment instructions
issued by the Indian Agents. The Indian
Agents are fuly responsible for the
activities of their Sub-agents. While the
Indian Agents will be encouraged to act as
self-regulated entities, the onus of ensuring
the proper conduct of activities of the Subagents in the prescribed manner will lie
solely on the Indian Agents. Every Indian
Agent would be required to conduct due
diligence before appointing a Sub-agent
and any irregularity observed could render
the Indian Agent's permission liable for
cancellation."

(6) Learned Counsel for the
petitioners has further submitted that by
means a Circular No. RBI/FED/2016-17/52
dated 22.02.2017, Chief General Managerin-Charge of the Reserve Bank of India has
notified Master direction-Money Transfer
Service Scheme (MTSS), giving therein a
vivid description as regards the manner in
which relates transaction are to be
conducted by the authorized persons with
their customers/constituents. According to
the learned Counsel, the aforesaid Master
Direction-Money Transfer Service Scheme
has also been issued describing statutory
basis and authroized dealer has also been
defined including as to who would be
treated full fledged money changer at point
1954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no. 2.3, whereas at point no. 2.4, there is a
definition clause of overseas principal and
thereafter guidelines for Indian Agents and
Guidelines for appointment of Sub-Agents
by Indian Agents has also been issued
comprehensively. In this backdrop, learned
Counsel has submitted that the petitioners
were well within their rights and they were
fully authorized as per guidelines of
Reserve Bank of India. The authorized
Indian Agent entered into an agreement as
permitted by the Reserve Bank of India
with the petitioners and the petitioners at
the strength of the said agreement were
carrying out their business.

(7) Elaborating his submission,
learned Counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that after due inquiry, the police
report has been submitted by the S.H.O.,
Police Station Dhanepur, Gonda dated
20.05.2021 to the District Magistrate
Gonda (Annexure no.3), recommending
that the seized amount of Rs.6,60,200/- is
liable to be refunded to the petitioners.
Even thereafter, the said amount has not
been released to the petitioners nor the
provisions of Section 102 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, which deals with the
power of the police officer to seize certain
property has been followed nor any F.I.R.
in this regard was lodged. Thus, he prays
that impugned order is liable to be quashed
and the petitioners are entitled for refund of
the said seized amount.

(8) Per contra, learned Counsel
representing the respondents no. 3 and 4
has submitted that the State Election
Commission had notified the Three-Tier
Panchayat General Election, 2021 vide
notification no. 709 dated 26.03.2021 and
this notification remained in operation till
02/03.05.2021. In order to enforce the
model code of conduct, a general search
operation was carried on 01.04.2021 and
during the said general search operation, a
vehicle bearing registration no. UP-32-FP4674 was intercepted, whereupon it was
found that vehicle was driven by petitioner
no.2 and cash amounting to Rs.6,60,2000/-
was also in the said vehicle and on query,
as no satisfactory explanation was given by
the petitioner no.2 regarding possession of
substantial amount of cash nor any
document was presented by the petitioner
no.2, the said cash amount was seized and
deposited in the district treasury vide
application dated 03.04.2021. Thereafter,
the petitioner no.1 submitted an application
for release of money, to which a report was
called from the three member Committee
constituted
by
the
District
Election
Officer/District Magistrate, Gonda vide
letter dated 28.05.2021. On receipt of the
said letter, the Chairman of the three
member Committee i.e. Sub-Divisional
Officer
issue
a
letter/notice
dated
29.05.2021, requiring the petitioners to
submit relevant documents on six points
mentioned in the letter. In response thereof,
the petitioners had submitted his reply,
stating that petitioner no.2 was carrying out
a business of Net Banking and that from
29.03.2021 to 01.04.2021, he had to pay an
amount of Rs.07,57,340/- to 36 persons,
however, as the bank was closed for five
days, he had transferred Rs.6,00,000/- to
one of his friend carrying out net-banking
business and that the case seized from him
was meant for disbursing the money to
those 36 persons. According to the learned
Counsel,
the
Officer-in-Charge,
P.S.
Dhanepur had also reported vide letter
dated 14.10.2022 that the petitioners had
not cooperated in the enquiry and that he
had not submitted any evidence in support
of his application. Based on this report, the
three Member Committee formed an
opinion that it could not be said that the
3 All. Ajmat Ullah Ansari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1955
seized cash was not meant to be used for
any illegitimate purpose in connection with
the Panchayat Elections, therefore, it was
recommended that it would not be proper to
refund or return the seized cash to the
petitioners. This recommendation was
placed
before
the
District
Magistrate/District
Panchayat
Officer,
Gonda for final disposal of the matter, upon
which the District Panchayat Officer,
Gonda had accepted the report of the three
Member Committee on 10.07.2023 and
consequently, vide letter dated 11.07.2023,
informed the petitioners about rejection of
his representation/application. Thus, the
instant writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.

(9)

Having
regard
to
the
submissions advanced by the learned
Counsel for the parties and going through
the record available before us in the instant
writ petition, it is required to be noted that
license for carrying out business of Net
Banking by name and style of Instant
Global Mani Transfer Pvt. Limited by the
petitioners is not in dispute.

(10) The controversy involved in
the instant writ petition has arisen due to
the rejection of the application preferred by
the petitioners for refund/release the seized
amount i.e. Rs.6,60,200/- by means of the
impugned order dated 11.07.2023.

(11) The petitioners claimed that
they are carrying out business of Net
Banking as Sub-Agent under the legally
granted license by the Reserve Bank of
India. The
seized cash
amount i.e.
Rs.6,60,200/- was meant for disbursing the
money to those 36 persons details of which
have been mentioned as Annexure No. 4 to
the writ petition and the Station Officer of
Police Station Dhanepur, Gonda clarified
that the petitioner deals with money
banking transfer known as Instant Global
Money Transfer Limited and is an agent
and the recovery of specified amount of
Rs.6,60,200/- does not contravene any
provision
of
law
and
therefore
recommendation was made to the District
Magistrate, Gonda to release the said
amount, however, no offence is reported by
the police authorities in regard to seize of
the said amount and in a casual and
arbitrary manner, the representation of the
petitioners has been deal with and has been
rejected without spelling out any valid
rhyme or reason reluctantly into forfeiture
of the aforesaid amount.

(12) On the other hand, the stand
of the respondents no.3 and 4 before this
Court is that the impugned order dated
06.08.2023 has been passed on considering
the report of the Three Member Committee
duly constituted by the District Magistrate
for smooth functioning of the Panchayat
Election and the petitioners have failed to
show that the seized cash amount was not
meant to be used for any illegitimate
purpose in connection with the Panchayat
Election, hence the application of the
petitioners have rightly been rejected by
means of the impugned order.

(13)

Before
analyzing
the
contentions of the learned Counsel for the
parties, we deem it apt to mention herein
that in the case of Chandra Kishor Jha vs.
Mahavir Prasad and Ors. : (1999) 8 SCC
266, the Apex Court has emphasized that it
is a well settled salutary principle that if a
statute provides for a thing to be done in a
particular manner, then it has to be done in
that manner and in no other manner.

(14) Therefore, if the salutary
principle is kept in perspective, in the
1956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
instant case, though the police authorities
are vested with sufficient power; such
power is circumscribed by a procedure laid
down under the statute. As such the power
is to be exercised in that manner alone,
failing which it would fall foul of the
requirement of complying due process
under law.

(15) Section 102 Cr.P.C reads as
follows :-

 "102. Power of police officer to
seize certain property.-
(1) Any police officer may seize
any property which may be alleged or
suspected to have been stolen, or which
may be found under circumstances which
create suspicion of the commission of any
offence.
(2)
Such
police
officer,
if
subordinate to the officer in charge of a
police station, shall forthwith report the
seizure to that officer.
[(3) Every police officer acting
under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report
the seizure to the Magistrate having
jurisdiction and where the property seized
is such that it cannot be conveniently
transported to the Court, 2[or where there is
difficulty
in
securing
proper
accommodation for the custody of such
property, or where the continued retention
of the property in police custody may not
be considered necessary for the purpose of
investigation,] he may give custody thereof
to any person on his executing a bond
undertaking to produce the property before
the Court as and when required and to give
effect to the further orders of the Court as
to the disposal of the same:]
[Provided that where the property
seized under sub-section (1) is subject to
speedy and natural decay and if the person
entitled to the possession of such property
is unknown or absent and the value of such
property is less than five hundred rupees, it
may forthwith be sold by auction under the
orders of the Superintendent of Police and
the provisions of sections 457 and 458
shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply
to the net proceeds of such sale.]

(16) The reading of sub-section (1)
of Section 102 makes it clear that the police
officer may seize any property alleged or
suspected to have been stolen or or which
may be found under circumstances, which
create suspicion of commission of any
offence.

(17) In the instant case, what we
find is that the police officers though seized
the cash amount from the vehicle of the
petitioners on the allegation that the said
cash amount has to be used for Panchayat
Election but surprisingly in that regard no
F.I.R. has been registered nor following the
statutory provisions of Section 102 of
Criminal Procedure Code, hence we find
that there is fault with the Police Officer
and declare the action bad only in so far as
not following the legal requirement before
and after seizure of the cash amount of Rs.
6,60,200/- from the possession of the
petitioners, however, this shall not be
construed as an opinion expressed on the
merit of the allegation or any other aspect
relating to the matter and the action
initiated against the petitioners, which is a
matter to be taken note in appropriate
proceedings if at all any issue is raised by
the aggrieved party.

(18) It is also apparent from
Annexure No.3, which is a report of the
Station Officer, Police Station Dhanepur,
Gonda, that the Station Officer, Police
Station Dhanepur, Gonda, vide its report
dated 20.05.2021 addressed to District
3 All. U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Fzd. & Anr.
1957
Magistrate,
Gonda,
after
investigating the matter, recommended to
release the seized cash. However, from
perusal of the impugned order and the
counter affidavit, there is not a whisper of
word
regarding
the
aforesaid
recommendation of the Station Officer,
Police Station Dhanepur, Gonda. In the
counter affidavit, the respondents have
admitted the fact that the petitioners are
doing money transfer service through net
banking as a sub-agent under the authority
given by the Reserve Bank of India. There
is also not denial in the counter affidavit
about the fact that the petitioners were not
carrying
Net
Banking
business. The
petitioners' case right from the beginning is
that the cash amounting to Rs.6,60,000/- ,
which was seized, was to be disbursed to
36 persons and list of such persons has
been enclosed in Annexure No.4 to the writ
petition. This has also not been denied by
the respondents in the counter affidavit.

(19) Apart from the above
consideration, what has also engaged the
attention of this Court is with regard to the
plea put forth on behalf of the petitioners
regarding the need to release the seized
amount to enable the petitioners to pay the
due amount as per the statutory rules. The
petitioners in that regard has relied
Annexure No.4 also, which is a list of 36
persons and it indicates that the amount
payable towards to such persons, in all
amounting to Rs.7,57,340.07. Furthermore,
the respondents have not placed any
document(s) or evidence, which suggest
that the seized cash was to be used in the
process of panchayat election illegally.

(20) Since we have indicated that
the seizure of the cash amounting to
Rs.6,60,200/- has been done without due
compliance of law, interest of justice would
be suffice, if respondents No.3-Assistant
District Election Officer, District Election
Office (Panchayat and Nagriya Nikay),
Gonda is directed to release the seized cash
to the petitioners.

(21) In terms of the above, the
order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the
respondent no.3 is hereby quashed. We
direct that the respondents shall release the
seized amount for a sum of Rs.6,60,200/- to
the petitioners. However, liberty is reserved
to respondent No.3 thereafter to initiate
action afresh in accordance with law, if
they so desire.

(22) The instant writ petition is
allowed to the above extent with no order
as to costs.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1957
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 12689 of 2017

U.P.S.R.T.C. ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer Labour Court, Fzd. & Anr.
 ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C., Birendra Prasad Singh

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Industrial Disputes Act,1947Section
33(c)-The
Petitioner(UP
road
transport corporation) preferred the writ
petition challenging the order of Labour
Court-Respondent no. 2 was a conductor