Decided on February 10,2012

Nagendra Brahmchari Chela Brahmleen Anand Swaroop Brahmchari Appellant
State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents


- (1.) Heard.
(2.) Learned counsel for the parties agree that this writ petition may be decided at the admission stage itself. This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 8.9.2008 and 17.10.2011 passed by respondent no. 2. A prayer has also been made to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the property in question to the petitioner. The petition is supported by an affidavit.
(3.) Petitioner alleged that the petitioner is a trusty of Mokshdham Ashram, which is adjoining with Dudhadhari Ashram. Dudhadhari Ashram is a very prosperous Ashram, which has political approach. In this Ashram, a number of politicians come and stay, and Dudhadhari Ashram wants to grab the land of the petitioner's Ashram. Due to this, a number of cases (both civil and criminal) were filed against each other. In some of the cases, the petitioner has been acquitted and some of the cases are still pending. The petitioner purchased a plot (area 2000 sq. ft.) on 25.1.2006 in Rs. 1,50,000/- (One Lac Fifty Thousand). The said plot of the petitioner was seized by the respondents and they fixed a date of auction under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Against this, the petitioner filed a reference before the Special Judge, Gangster Court, Haridwar. In the said application, the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge has passed an order that the respondent has not submitted any information to the court concerned and not any reference has been filed by the District Magistrate. Hence, he stayed the auction of the said plot. The petitioner has submitted that no case is pending against the petitioner in Case Crime No. 411/07 under Section 2/3 of the Act, P.S. Jawalapur, District Haqridwar and in all the alleged cases, he has been acquitted. The petitioner has further submitted that in the above Case Crime No. 411/07 under Section 2/3 of the Act, the Investigating Officer has already submitted final report on 1.3.2008. It has further been stated in paragraph 9 of the petition that respondent no. 2 has passed order without due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, misusing the Act. The petitioner has submitted that though no case is pending against him in Case Crime No. 411/07 under Section 2/3 the Act at P.S. Jawalapur, District Haridwar, yet the plot of the petitioner has been seized, which is absolutely arbitrary and misuse of the Act.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.