- (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.
From the impugned order, it is explicit that certain landed property of the petitioners has been attached, which property, as per subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate, has been acquired as a result of commission of offences triable under Act, 1986.

Sri Daya Shanker Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners emphatically submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow with total non-application of mind and without considering the manner and sources from which the property in question has been acquired by the petitioners. He submitted that the District Magistrate has ignored the sale deeds relating to said properties and has also ignored the fact that the said properties were in fact acquired by the petitioner from her own source of income. The petitioners have annexed various interim orders passed by this Court in Writ Petitions and have claimed that relief in similar terms be granted in the present case.

(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) ).
Sri Misra laid much emphasis upon section 18 of Act, 1986. Section 18 of said Act provides for 'appeal' against any judgment or order of a Court passed under the provisions of Act, 1986. However, the submission of learned Additional Government Advocate with respect to alternative remedy available to the petitioners could not be rebutted by him. Sri Misra also relied upon a judgment annexed along with the writ petition in the case of Smt. Kahkashan Parveen and another v. State of U. P. Writ Petition Nos. 3983 and 3669 of 1999 decided on 10th August, 1999. In said case, admittedly the Division Bench of this Court has not dealt with the question of availability of alternative remedy under Sections 15 and 16 of Act, 1986. For better appreciation of the questions of law involved in this writ petition, we may consider the provisions of sections 15 and 16 of the Act.