# Srimati Maya Devi Smarak Siksha Samiti v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 156
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16327 of 2022
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/srimati-maya-devi-smarak-siksha-samiti-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50766
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - Sections 3/2 & 14 (1) - Attachment
of property - Section 14(3) - Appointment
of an administrator, Section 15 - Release
of property.
FIR was registered - against one and his gang
members - District Magistrate attached property
owned by accused - under Section 14(1) of Act -
institution was locked from outside - attachment
order was pasted on wall - administrator
appointed - students of the institution - be
transferred to other institutions - directions -
Petitioner (Manager) aggrieved by transfer of
students to another institution - order is a
consequential order - not under challenge.
(Para - 5, 8,9,11)

HELD:-Order dated 14.10.2022, which is a
consequential order, is in compliance with the
order dated 13.10.2022, which has not been
filed or challenged in this writ petition as well as
connected
writ
petition,
and
cannot
be
interfered
with
until
challenged
and
set
aside.(Para - 21)

Writ Petitions dismissed. (E-7)

## Text

156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 156
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16327 of 2022
Connected with
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15652 of 2022

Srimati Maya Devi Smarak Siksha Samiti
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, Sri R.K. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Agarwal Archi Piyush, Sri Pratik
Chandra

(A) Criminal Law - The U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - Sections 3/2 & 14 (1) - Attachment
of property - Section 14(3) - Appointment
of an administrator, Section 15 - Release
of property.
FIR was registered - against one and his gang
members - District Magistrate attached property
owned by accused - under Section 14(1) of Act -
institution was locked from outside - attachment
order was pasted on wall - administrator
appointed - students of the institution - be
transferred to other institutions - directions -
Petitioner (Manager) aggrieved by transfer of
students to another institution - order is a
consequential order - not under challenge.
(Para - 5, 8,9,11)

HELD:-Order dated 14.10.2022, which is a
consequential order, is in compliance with the
order dated 13.10.2022, which has not been
filed or challenged in this writ petition as well as
connected
writ
petition,
and
cannot
be
interfered
with
until
challenged
and
set
aside.(Para - 21)

Writ Petitions dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri R. K. Ojha, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Lokesh
Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri Manish Goyal, learned
Additional Advocate General for the State
of U.P. and Sri Pratik Chandra, learned
counsel for the respondent No.4.

2. Writ Petition No. 16327 of 2022,
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.

3. 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.

4. Writ Petition No. 15652 of 2022 is
by two persons who allege to be students of
Srimati Maya Devi Smarak Siksha Samiti
and this writ 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.

5. Briefly stated, an FIR dated
16.08.2020 was registered giving rise to
Case Crime No. 0218 of 2020, under
Section 3/2 of the U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986,
Police Station Adyogik Kshetra, District-
9 All. Srimati Maya Devi Smarak Siksha Samiti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
157
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 of 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.

6. It is contended by Sri R. K. Ojha
that the institution in question is managed
by a registered society. If one member of
such 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 Writ Petition No. 8937 of 2022. 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.

7. Consequent to the said order of the
High Court, an administrator has been
appointed, vide order dated, 11.08.2022.

8.

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.

9. Petitioner in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition
No. 16327 of 2022, 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.

10. It is lastly submitted that Section
14(3)
of
the Act
empowers
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.

11. Shri Manish Goyal, learned
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
(annexure-8) to the writ 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.
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. 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.

13. 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 aforenoted submission, it has been submitted
that the institution was running on paper
alone.

14. Shri Prateek Chandra, who
appears for the fourth respondent has
submitted that the order dated 14.10.2022
has been passed in the interest of the
students as the institution was found locked
at the time of inspection.

15. In rejoinder, Sri R. K. Ojha,
learned Senior Advocate relying upon
paragraph-8 of the writ petition stated that
it has been averred therein that the
representation under Section 15(1) of the
U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act filed on 27.10.2020 for
the release of the institution has not been
decided till date and this assertion has not
been denied in the counter-affidavit filed by
the State. In paragraph 9 of the counteraffidavit, it has been stated that the contents
of the paragraph 8 of the writ petition need
no comment.

16. He has reiterated that the
representation that has been decided by the
District Magistrate on 11.08.2020 is the
representation made for appointment of an
administrator. The main representation for
release of the property has not been decided
till date and is still pending adjudication.
He has also referred to Section 6 of the
Societies Registration Act and has also
submitted that the interest of the institution
is also to be borne in mind and that the
interest of the students alone cannot be the
basis of the impugned order.

17. Learned AGA has submitted that
the
petitioner
had
made
only
one
representation on 27.10.2020 under Section
15 of the Act. The second representation
was made on 03.08.2022 after the earlier
writ petition filed by the petitioner was
decided being Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.
8937 of 2022. Both these representations
stand decided by the District Magistrate
vide order dated 11.08.2022 as would be
clear from the perusal of the last sentence
of this order.

18. Insofar as the other Writ Petition
No. 15652 of 2022 is concerned, no
separate submissions have been made,
although, the Court has been informed that
the Senior Advocate appearing in both
petitions is the same.

19. 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.

20. 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.
9 All. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, District Gautam Budh Nagar Vs. M/s. Pathik
 Software Education Pvt. Ltd., Pandav Nagar, Delhi & Anr.
159
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.

21. Perusal of the order dated
14.10.2022 clearly reveals that it is a
consequential order passed in compliance of
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.

22. 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.

23. 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 Writ Petition No. 8937 of
2022.

24. From bare perusal of Annexure 5 to
the writ 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.

25. All others 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.

26. Under the circumstances, addressing all
other arguments raised by the petitioner would be
a purely academic exercise.

27. In view of the foregoing, and since the
two issues which arise for consideration in the writ
petition has been decided against the petitioner, the
writ petition fails and is dismissed.

28. Even connected Writ Petition No.15652
of 2022 is dismissed as the order passed by the
Vice Chancellor on 13.10.2022 and the
consequential order passed by the Registrar on
14.10.2022 are not under challenge in this writ
petition.

29. Accordingly, both writ petitions are
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 159
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASANT KUMAR, J.

First Appeal Defective No. 218 of 2022
Connected with
First Appeal No. 467 of 2022

New
Okhla
Industrial
Development
Authority, District Gautam Budh Nagar
 ...Appellant
Versus
M/s. Pathik Software Education Pvt. Ltd.,
Pandav Nagar, Delhi & Anr. ...Respondents