CHHOTEY LAL YADAV Vs. STATE O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. Mateen, J. Heard Sri Daya Shanker Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate.

(2.) THE present Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioners feeling aggrieved by order dated 29th September, 2007 (contained in Annexure-15 to the petition) passed by District Magistrate, Lucknow under section 14 (1) of the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986) thereby attaching the property owned by the petitioners. THE District Magistrate, Lucknow, in the impugned order has mentioned that the property in question has been acquired as a result of commission of offences triable under Act, 1986.

(3.) IN reply. Additional Government Advocate" has submitted that the petitioners have got equally efficacious alternative remedy under Sections 15 and 16 of Act, 1986. It has been submitted by learned Additional Government Advocate that the alternative remedy by way of appeal provided under the Act is a statutory remedy and the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia in view of availability of said statutory remedy, is not maintainable. To augment his submission, learned Additional Government Advocate has cited the case of Krishna Murari @ Deepak v. District Magistrate, Jhansi and others (1. 2001 (42) ACC 107 (HC) ).