Allahabad High Court
GAYA SHANKAR PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the petitioner's application before the Additional District Magistrate must be forwarded to the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Prayagraj, as the competent authority under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019.
Summary
The petitioner, Gaya Shankar Pandey, sought relief to release money held by a financial institution, arguing that the appropriate mode was to make a representation under Section 7 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019. The petitioner had previously filed an application before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Prayagraj, but the State Government's notification had appointed Divisional Commissioners as the competent authority for the Act. The court examined the procedural framework and directed that the petitioner's papers be forwarded to the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Prayagraj for action under the Act. It noted that FIRs had been lodged against other accused, but none against the directors of the financial institution, limiting further investigation. Consequently, the court ordered the forwarding of the representation and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner's representation before the Additional District Magistrate can be treated as a petition to the competent authority under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019
- Whether the court should direct the forwarding of the petitioner's papers to the Additional Commissioner (Administration) for action
Legislation cited
- Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 — s. 30, 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 506
Subjects
- Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act
- writ petition
- competent authority
- Additional District Magistrate
- Additional Commissioner
- financial institution
- FIR
- investigation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 28067 of 2026
Gaya Shankar Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Inarmal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Instructions have been placed in compliance of our previous order
dated 23.07.2026, which are taken on record. As per instructions, one FIR
had been registered against the accused Prithvipal and others as Case
Crime No. 168/2022, u/s 420/406/506 IPC on 26.12.2022 at the instance
of one Ram Lakhan Pal and another FIR bearing Case Crime No.
11/2026, u/s 406 IPC had been registered on 13.03.2026 at the instance of
one Rajiv Singh. However, the petitioner has not lodged any FIR against
the directors of financial institution and, therefore, no further
investigation could be carried out in the matter on the complaint of the
petitioner. However, in response to the pending FIRs as aforesaid, police
is still conducting the investigation.
2. In reply to the instructions place before us, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that there are two modes to get the money released
from the financial institution: first, by lodging the FIR and secondly by
making representation before the competent authority under Section 7 of
the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act, 2019'). It is submitted that the second mode being
more effective and expeditious one, petitioner opted the same by moving
an application before the Additional District Magistrate (Finance &
Revenue), however, in view of the notification issued by the State
Government on 12.11.2021, the Governor since has appointed all
Divisional Commissioners in the State as competent authority within their
jurisdiction for the purposes of the said Act, except for section 30 of the
WRIC No. 28067 of 2026
2
said Act and all Additional Commissioners (Administration) within their
respective jurisdictions to assist the competent authority in discharging its
function for the purposes of the said Act. It is therefore argued by learned
counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has already moved the
application before the Additional District Magistrate (F & R), the same
may be directed to be placed before the Additional Commissioner
(Administration), Prayagraj to do the needful in the matter.
3. Learned Standing Counsel does not have any objection to the above
request.
4. In such above view of the matter and further in the given facts and
circumstances of this case, we direct the Additional District Magistrate (F
& R), Prayagraj to forward the papers of the petitioner along with his
representation dated 11.05.2026, copy of which is appended as Annexure
6 to the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Prayagraj within two
weeks of production of certified copy of the order, for necessary action in
the matter in terms of the circular letter issued pursuant the provisions
contained under the Act, 2019. The Additional Commissioner
(Administration), Prayagraj upon receipt of papers would do the needful
in the matter and thereafter the competent authority under the Act, 2019
shall proceed to finalise the same as expeditiously as possible.
5. With aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
September 11, 2026
A.K.Srivastava
Digitally signed by :-
ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…