Anil Agarwal v. Ram Kumar — 1992 DIGILAW 850 (ALL)

JUDGMENT : Virendra Saran, J. This special appeal has been filed by Sri Anil Agarwal against the order dated 9-6-1992 of the learned Single Judge. Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17627 of 1992 Mr. Justice Markandey Katju was sitting as Vacation Judge when he passed the impugned order. 2. We have heard Sri Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar, learned Senior Advocate who was assisted by Sri G.S. Chaturvedi and Sri Ambrish Kumar Sharma Advocates on 19-6-1992 and orders were reserved. 3. How the radiation of money power is annihilating every drop of goodness from human souls would leave one horrified from the facts of the present case the circumstances of the case give enough exposure to the intrigue and conspiracy between the Appellant and the police. We are in deep anguish to find that innocent and respectable citizens have been labelled as 'Gangsters'. The case presents a picture of gross misuse of the process of the court of Special Judge established under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act with the result that the writ Petitioners including the Petitioner No. 3 Mrs. Sohendra Nagrath a helpless widow and a respectable citizen are all roaming on the streets like beggars. The conduct of Sri K.N. Singh the learned Special Judge has left many question marks in our mind and the same cannot be ignored in view of the fact that he happens to be a senior member of our State Judiciary. 4. It is noteworthy that by that impugned order the learned Single Judge on 9-6-1992 had directed that the possession will be restored to the Petitioners, in the writ petition, and the Supurdgar will remove his locks forthwith. At the time of arguments of this special appeal on 19-6-1992 the learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the locks have yet not been removed and the possession has not been restored It appears that the interim order dated 9-6-1992 is being flouted and remains only as a sheet of paper It is shot king that the orders of the learned Single Judge restoring the possession to the writ Petitioners and removal of lock by the Supurdgar forthwith has been thrown to the winds and time allowed to pass. 5. 5. The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was enacted to save the innocent citizens from the claws of hardened criminals and for liquidating organized gangs of criminals. The misuse of the provisions of the Act in the present case would leave the law makers guessing that they were merely dreaming in the day. 6. Adverting to the present case, the writ petition was filed by Ram Kumar, Sahdeo Mishra, Smt Sohender Nagarath, Ram Asre and Makhan Lai impleading nine Respondents which included Special Judge, Kanpur Nagar appointed under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Gangster Act" (Respondent No. 1), Sri K.N. Singh, Special Judge (VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar (Respondent No. 2, by name), Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar (Respondent No. 3), Station Officer, P.S. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar (Respondent No. 4), Anil Agrawal (Respondent No. 25), Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir Prabandh Karini Sabha. Anand Bag, Kanpur through its Secretary (Respondent No. 6), Sri Prem Nath Agrawal (Respondent No. 7), Sri P. Pradhan (Respondent No. 8) and the State of Uttar Pradesh (Respondent No. 9). 7. The allegations in the writ petition are that the writ Petitioners, who are Respondent No. 1 to 5 in the Special Appeal are tenants of House No. 27/180 Swaroop Nagar, in the town of Kanpur Nagar. This property is trust property belonging to the trust known as Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir Prabandh Karini Sabha, Kanpur. It is further alleged in the writ petition that the writ Petitioners have been living in the said house for a very long time. It is alleged in para No. 23 of the writ petition that Respondent No. 5 Anil Agarwal (now Appellant in the present Special Appeal) colluded with Respondents No. 26 to 8 of the writ petition and an agreement to sell the property allegedly worth Rs. 2 Crores for a small sum of Rs. 23 Lacs only was executed. The said agreement has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A power attorney was also executed in favour of Anil Agarwal and the same has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition after the execution of these documents Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 started harassing the writ Petitioners in order to evict them from the house and they adopted various tactics for this purpose. A power attorney was also executed in favour of Anil Agarwal and the same has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition after the execution of these documents Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 started harassing the writ Petitioners in order to evict them from the house and they adopted various tactics for this purpose. Respondents No. 25 to 8 in the writ petition also refused to accept the rent in order to create problems. Consequently cases were filed by the writ Petitioners for depositing the rents in court and the learned Munsif, Kanpur Nagar directed them to deposit rent in court. Copies of orders, passed u/s 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act have been filed as Annexures 3-A to 3-D to the writ petition and the photo copies of the receipts of having deposited rent are filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 8. The writ petition goes on to state that 'even after the deposit of rent in court, the writ Petitioners were continuously harassed so that they may leave the house and consequently the writ Petitioners had no option but to file an injunction suit in the court of the Munsif City, Kanpur-Nagar. They also made an application praying for an ad-interim injunction vide application dated 19-9-88. The said application is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. This suit for injunction is still pending in the Civil Courts as is evident from Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Another important document which has been filed along with the writ petition is the photo copy of the voters list of the year 1975. This copy is somewhat dim but it mentions several names out of which we have been able to make out the name of Smt. Nagarath at Serial No. 264. In para 7 of the writ petition it is specifically stated as under: That, a copy of the voter list is also filed before this Hon'ble Court as Annexure-VII for proving the residence of the Petitioners as house No. 7/180 and it is also admitted by Respondents. The reply of this para is contained in para 28 of the first counter-affidavit filed by Anil Kumar and there is no specific denial of the assertion made in the writ petition. The reply of this para is contained in para 28 of the first counter-affidavit filed by Anil Kumar and there is no specific denial of the assertion made in the writ petition. However, 'since the photo copy of the voters list is a dim copy, we will prefer not to base any conclusions on the same in this appeal. 9. In para 6 of the writ petition it has been stated that since the harassment to the writ Petitioners remained unabated and they filed a suit for permanent injunction In the said suit an application dated 19-9-1988 was made seeking ad-interim injunction The said application has been annexed as annexure 5' to the writ petition. It appears that an injunction had been granted inasmuch as the writ Petitioners have filed a copy of the questionnaire (search application) which goes to show that injunction was granted. The photo copy of the search application has been filed as annexure 6' to the writ petition. In counter-affidavit (First), there is no specific denial of this fact in para 28 thereof. 10. It is further alleged in para No. 8 of the writ petition that an application for release of the accommodation was moved before the Prescribed Authority u/s 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act by Respondent No. 6 to the writ petition against writ Petitioner No. 3 Smt. Sohender Nagrath but the same was dismissed on 3-1-90. In the counter-affidavit of Anil Kumar filed in reply to the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as counter-affidavit-I), there is no denial of this fact in para No. 229 thereof. On the other hand an ad-interim injunction was granted in the injunction suit filed by Mrs Nagrath, writ Petitioner No. 3 as is evident from Annexure-VIII to the writ petition. From all the above facts the writ Petitioners appears to be the tenants of the property. 11. In para 10 of the writ petition it is alleged shat when the attempts to evict the writ Petitioners by lawful means failed and the Appellant in this appeal and his associates were unsuccessful in their attempts to throw out the tenants from the property, they in collusion with the police lodged a false and concocted First Information Report u/s 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, making utterly false allegations. The informant of this FIR is Anil Agarwal. The informant of this FIR is Anil Agarwal. The case was registered as Crime No. 373 of 1991 at Police Station, Swarup Nagar. The accused named in the FIR including writ Petitioners Ram Kumar, Sahdev, Ram Asre and others rushed to this Court for seeking protection and filed writ petition in this Court. From copy of order dated 9-1-92, filed as annexure 'X' to the writ petition, it would appear that a bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.N. Dubey and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.P. Kenia directed that until further orders of the Court the arrest in the case u/s 3(1) of the Gangster Act shall remain stayed. 12. After this attempt to put the tenants in jail and pressurise them to vacate their tenanted accommodation failed, an application was filed by Anil Agrawal Appellant before the Special Judge u/s 16(2) of the Gangster Act for attaching the property. It is averred in para 15 of the writ petition that Respondent No. 2 Sri K.N. Singh who was Special Judge under the Gangsters Act, due to monetary gain, passed an attachment order on 27-4-1992 which is annexure 'XIIF to the writ petition. It is stated in para 15 of the writ petition that the order of the learned Special Judge had been passed illegally and for monetary gains. In compliance of the aforesaid order of attachment the Station Officer locked the doors of the accommodation which has been in possession of the writ Petitioners for a very long period and a Supurdgar was also appointed. In para 17 of the writ petition it is alleged that every essential goods including the clothes of the writ Petitioners were locked up and the writ Petitioners were rendered without a roof and wandering hither and thither like beggars on the streets. 13. On 4-5-92 the writ Petitioners moved an application before Respondent No. 1 to release the attached property and open the lock but this application was ordered to be put up on 5-5-92. True copy of the application is Annexure-XV to the writ petition. 14. On 6-5-92 another application was moved by the writ Petitioners to the District & Sessions Judge Kanpur Nagar to hear the case expeditiously as the Special Judge had proceeded on leave. The case was transferred to the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur-Nagar. True copy of the application is Annexure-XV to the writ petition. 14. On 6-5-92 another application was moved by the writ Petitioners to the District & Sessions Judge Kanpur Nagar to hear the case expeditiously as the Special Judge had proceeded on leave. The case was transferred to the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur-Nagar. A true copy of the application dated 6-5-92 has also been filed as Annexure XVI of the writ petition. 15. On 7-5-92 the Special Judge was present in Court and another application was moved before him to release the property but he deliberately fixed a long date, i.e. 18-5-92. A true copy of the application dated 7-5-92 is Annexure XVII to the writ petition. It is alleged that not even a single cloth is available to the writ Petitioners, who are being harassed by the Appellant in this appeal in collusion with his associates and who are Respondents in the writ petition and the Appellant and his associates themselves are behaving like gangsters. 16. In the above background the Petitioners approached this Court by filing the writ petition No. 17627 of 1992 and prayed for releasing the property from attachment and for opening the lock of their tenanted house. 17. A counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition by Appellant Anil Agarwal which shall be referred as Counter-Affidavit I. It is alleged in his counter affidavit that Sri Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir Kami Samiti is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. The Society is performing charitable work, like running educational institutions. 18. In this counter-affidavit para 6 has been typed twice. In para 6 (first), it is alleged that House No. 7/180 is the sole property of the Society. It is further alleged that the writ Petitioners took possession illegally in some rooms of the house but the major portion of the premises was untouched by the unauthorised occupation of the writ Petitioners. In para 6 (Second) of this counter-affidavit, it is alleged that the writ Petitioners just to grab the entire accommodation in the year 1986 tried to set up a false claim of tenancy and by preparing forged documents before the Subordinate Courts started depositing rent without informing Anil Agarwal-Appellant in this appeal. 19. In para 6 (Second) of this counter-affidavit, it is alleged that the writ Petitioners just to grab the entire accommodation in the year 1986 tried to set up a false claim of tenancy and by preparing forged documents before the Subordinate Courts started depositing rent without informing Anil Agarwal-Appellant in this appeal. 19. In para 7 of the counter-affidavit (First), it is alleged that Sri Pradyot Pradhan (Respondent No. 8 in the writ petition) is the Secretary who had full authority to manage the affairs of the society. The said Respondent No. 8 executed a registered power of attorney in favour of Appellant Anil Agarwal to do each and every thing regarding the house in dispute. In papa 9 of the counter-affidavit (First), it is alleged that when the writ Petitioners tried to grab the entire accommodation an FIR under the Gangsters Act was filed. On this basis of the FIR the Investigating Officer made investigation and submitted charge sheet on 28-3-1992 (vide Annexure-XI) to the writ petition On the basis of this charge sheet the Special Judge has summoned the accused persons. In counter-affidavit (First) it is mentioned in para 14 that Anil Agarwal moved an application before the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar u/s 14 of the Gangsters Act to attach the house and release the same in favour of Anil Agarwal. The application has not been annexed with the counter-affidavit. These assertions of para 14 of the counter-affidavit (First) appear to be false and they have not been sworn on personal knowledge but on perusal of record. The reason for introducing this false assertion would be discussed by us later. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit Anil Agarwal filed application u/s 16(2) of the 'Gangsters Act' before the Special Judge. The impugned order was passed on 27-4-92 by the Special Judge. It is alleged in para 17 of the counter-affidavit that the writ petition is not maintainable and it has been filed at an interlocutory stage and writ Petitioners had full opportunity of getting relief from the Special Judge on the basis of their two applications. In para 18 of the counter-affidavit (first) it is alleged that ten persons, including the writ Petitioners Nos. In para 18 of the counter-affidavit (first) it is alleged that ten persons, including the writ Petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have now filed affidavits before the Special Judge stating that they had usurped the house at the instigation of petitioner No. 3 Smt. Sohender Nagarath and they do not want to continue their illegal possession and they are evicting the house and releasing the accommodation. The Photostat copies of such alleged affidavits have been filed as Annexures IV to XIII of the counter-affidavit (first) In para 19 of this counter affidavit it is alleged that on the basis of these affidavits the Special Judge passed the order on 11-5-92 releasing the aforesaid house in favour of Anil Agarwal except for the portion occupied by Smt Nagarath (Petitioner No. 3, which is under attachment and has not been released. True copy of the order dated 11-5-92 has been filed as Annexure. C. A -XIV to the counter-affidavit (first). It is alleged that the writ petition is now in fructuous. In para 20 of the counter affidavit (first) it is stated that the Special Judge makes necessary inquiry u/s 156 Code of Criminal Procedure but the writ Petitioner No. 3 is deliberately avoiding to participate. 20. Para Nos. 22 to 42 of the counter-affidavit (first) have given para-wise reply to the writ petition and the same has been perused by us. 21. A second counter-affidavit has also has been filed by Sri Anil Agarwal and it is interesting to note that in para 4 of the counter-affidavit (second) now Anil Agarwal claims and asserts that he is the sole-owner of the house in para No. 10 of the affidavit it is alleged that on 13-5-92 Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.K. Verma ordered that no attachment shall be made till 29-7-92 and hence a modification of the said order should not be allowed. In this connection we would like to mention that on 13-5-92 Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.K. Varma had directed that attachment of the house No. 7/180 Swarup Nagar Kanpur Nagar shall not be made till 29-7-92. An application was made on behalf of the writ Petitioners praying that the order passed on 13-5-92 be modified to the extent that Respondents to the writ petition may be directed to release the attached property of the writ Petitioners, and to open the locks of the room. On this application Mr. An application was made on behalf of the writ Petitioners praying that the order passed on 13-5-92 be modified to the extent that Respondents to the writ petition may be directed to release the attached property of the writ Petitioners, and to open the locks of the room. On this application Mr. Justice U.K. Varma had passed the following order on 20-5-92: List with previous papers on 1-6-92 before Vacation Judge. Let the objection, if any, be filed within a week. 22. The interim orders in writ petition are not tied up matters and similarly the order dated 13-5-92, passed by Mr. Justice U.K. Varma was also not an order tying up the case with him. There is also no specific direction to that effect in the order dated 13-5-92. On the other hand the order dated 20-5-92, passed by Mr. Justice U. K. Varma clearly shows his intention that the matter be placed before the Vacation Judge. The matter came up before Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Srivastava who directed that the case be listed for admission and time till 8th June was granted for filing counter-affidavit. Under these circumstances the matter came up before the next Vacation Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju. The counter-affidavits having been filed the impugned order was passed by Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and in such circumstances no one can make grievance that he had not been given opportunity of placing his case before the learned Single Judge. 23. The record of the case discloses that it is an admitted fact that the writ Petitioners were in possession of the disputed house at least since 1986. Photo copy of the voters list shows that the Petitioner No. 3 Smt. Nagarath's name was entered in the same as far as back as 1975. But we are not attaching much importance to the voters list because it is not clear photo print. 24. Annexure-11 to the writ petition is the copy of the power of attorney in favour of the present Appellant Anil Agarwal. A perusal of this document shows that it is admitted to the Respondents to the writ petition that they were tenants in the disputed accommodation when the power of attorney was executed in the year 1988. 24. Annexure-11 to the writ petition is the copy of the power of attorney in favour of the present Appellant Anil Agarwal. A perusal of this document shows that it is admitted to the Respondents to the writ petition that they were tenants in the disputed accommodation when the power of attorney was executed in the year 1988. Reference may be made to para 2 of the power of attorney which authorised to Anil Agarwal to induct new tenants or to evict the old tenants and file suits and legal proceedings for eviction of the old tenants. Further in para No. 24 of this power of attorney, power is given to Anil Agarwal (Appellant) to demolish portions of the house after the same are evicted from the tenants. Thus this power of attorney amounts to an admission by Anil Agarwal that atleast since 1988 there were tenants. The fact that these writ Petitioners were tenants is corroborated by the receipts regarding deposit of rent by them in court Moreover para 6 (first) of the counter-affidavit (first) amounts to an admission that the Petitioners were in possession of the disputed premises and para 6 (second) of the counter-affidavit (first) indicates that the Petitioners were in possession since 1986. All these facts taken together clearly indicate that the writ Petitioners including Mrs. Nagarath have been in possession as tenants in the disputed accommodation atleast since 1986 or even prior and at any rate since 1988. It appears from the facts and circumstances of the case that Anil Agarwal (Appellant in the present appeal) wanted to grab the property worth Rs. Two Crores for a sum of Rs. 23 lacs and hence he induced the Secretary of the Society Sri P. Pradhan to execute an agreement to sell and power of attorney in his favour. After execution of these documents Anil Agarwal (Appellant) realising that the eviction suit may make long time to get decided thought up a device to throw out the writ Petitioners from the accommodation by misusing the provisions of Gangesters Act and with these designs he colluded with the police and lodged FIR under Gangester Act. After execution of these documents Anil Agarwal (Appellant) realising that the eviction suit may make long time to get decided thought up a device to throw out the writ Petitioners from the accommodation by misusing the provisions of Gangesters Act and with these designs he colluded with the police and lodged FIR under Gangester Act. The whole design of Appellant Anil Agarwal is malafide and is a cunning device to throw out the tenants from the house including the writ Petitioners If the law is permitted to be used In this manner there will be no rule of law but the rule of jungle will prevail every where. 25. In this very connection we may observe that the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, appointed under Uttar Pradesh Gangesters Act' to attach property u/s 16 of the said Act arises only when the District Magistrate has refused to attach the property under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. It appears to us that the District Magistrate had never been approached in the present case to attach the property and a false allegation was made in the application for attachment so that the Special Judge may clutch jurisdiction. In the application given by Anil Agarwal u/s 16 (2) of the Gangester Act there is a bald allegation that he met the District Magistrate with an application for attachment u/s 14 but his application was not even entertained Similarly in the counter affidavit it ha* been tried to be impressed that an application for attachment was given u/s 14 to the District Magistrate. However, Sri Anil Agarwal had no courage to annex or file copy of the said application which he had taken to the District Magistrate. There is no reason why a responsible officer, like the District Magistrate, would not entertain the said application. It appears to us that Anil Agarwal did not find the District Magistrate to be a purchasable commodity and hence he preferred to approach the Special Judge directly and in order to create jurisdiction an assertion was made that the District Magistrate did not entertain his application at all. The allegations to this effect in para 14 of the counter-affidavit (First) have not been sworn on personal knowledge. In our opinion such allegations are a deliberate falsehood designed to mislead the court. 26. The allegations to this effect in para 14 of the counter-affidavit (First) have not been sworn on personal knowledge. In our opinion such allegations are a deliberate falsehood designed to mislead the court. 26. The conduct of Sri K.N. Singh the learned Special Judge who passed the order dated 27-4-1992 and his further conduct in giving long rope to the applications made by the writ Petitioners for restoration of their possession is highly suspicious and needs a thorough enquiry. 27. At this very place we may refer to the shifting stands taken by Anil Agarwal. In para 8 of the counter-affidavit (first) he has stated that he was only an attorney and on the other hand in the counter-affidavit (second) which he had filed in reply to the modification application, it has been alleged in para 4 that he is the sole owner of the house. Thus there is a contradiction in these two counter-affidavits because a person cannot be an attorney and owner at the same time. It is evident that Anil Agarwal wanted to garb the property worth two crores of Rupees by paying of 1/10 of the market value. It may be noted that the allegation in para No. 3 of the writ petition that the property is worth about 2 Crore; of rupees has not been specifically denied in para 24 of the counter-affidavit (first). Para 24 merely says that the contents of para No. 3 of the writ petition are not admitted in the manner they had been stated and as such are denied. Under the law of pleading a bald denial of a specific allegation is not sufficient. The proceedings under the Gangesters Act have been taken only to throw out the only lawful tenants because Anil Agarwal realises that he could not evict them legally. Thus the entire proceedings under the Gangesters Act are malafide. 28. The averments in para 18 of the counter-affidavit (first) that ten persons, including writ Petitioners No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have filed affidavits before the Special Judge, may now be considered. The ingrains of hard reality come to surface when we put the allegations contained in these affidavits to a microscopic test. These affidavits are false and it may be that they have been given due to fear of prosecution under the Gangesters Act or for some other reason. The ingrains of hard reality come to surface when we put the allegations contained in these affidavits to a microscopic test. These affidavits are false and it may be that they have been given due to fear of prosecution under the Gangesters Act or for some other reason. The Gangesters Act provides stringent punishments and every body is horrified by the very idea of being sent to jail. The necks of these innocent writ Petitioners are under a tight grip of the Appellant and they want to retrieve themselves some how from the difficult situation at all costs. Even the self incriminating allegations in these affidavits are not voluntary but have been made under duress and are false. It is note worthy that these affidavits (Annexures CA-4 to CA-13 to the Counter-Affidavit First) have been sworn on a holiday and before the same Oath Commissioner with an interval of two minutes in between each affidavit in such a short time all these affidavits could not be read over and explained to the deponents and sworn. The time schedule is too tight and creates doubts in our mind. Further the author of these affidavits appear to be one and the same person and the identification have been made by one Sri L. K. Saxena in all these affidavits. 29. Thus the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the order dated 9-6-1992 of the learned Single Judge is bad on merits is not acceptable to us. 30. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that Mr. Justice Markandey Katju was Vacation Judge sitting on civil side on 9-6-1992 and the present case was criminal nature. On 9-6-92 one of us (Mr. Justice Virendra Saran) was sitting as Vacation Judge on Criminal side. However, the present writ petition is not of criminal nature as the main relief claimed was restoration of possession to the writ Petitioners of their tenanted accommodation of which they had been illegally deprived of. It was not a writ petition for quashing of FIR or investigation or for stay of arrest. The writ petition was rightly posted for orders before Mr. Justice Markandey Katju. 31. It was not a writ petition for quashing of FIR or investigation or for stay of arrest. The writ petition was rightly posted for orders before Mr. Justice Markandey Katju. 31. In the result, we are of the opinion, that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 9-6-92 is a perfectly justified order in the facts and circumstances of the case and calls for no interference. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 32. Earlier, in the judgment we have expressed our anguish that money has been playing its role in the present case. Sri Anil Agarwal has stated in ground No. 7 of the Special Appeal that now he is in possession. By not obeying of the order of the learned Single Judge he is in contempt and he must obey the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The conduct of Sri K.N. Singh learned Special Judge, (Under the Uttar Pradesh Gangesters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention Act) appears to be highly suspicious and needs to be enquired into. 33. The Registrar is directed to place our order before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for such action which the Hon'ble the Chief Justice may deem necessary and for nominating a Bench for the writ petition. 34. Let a copy of this order be placed on the record of the writ petition and another copy be sent to the Special Judge (appointed under the Uttar Pradesh Gangesters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act), Kanpur Nagar. Since affidavit of service has not been filed by the Appellant the office shall inform in writing Sri Kamlesh Kumar counsel for the writ Petitioners of this order. 35. The Registrar shall take care of the file of the Special Appeal as also of the Writ Petition.