Dismissed
Munish Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Allahabad HCWRIC/26505/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26505 of 2018…
What the court decided
AI extract
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26505 of 2018…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26505 of 2018
Petitioner :- Munish Chandra Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition is directed against the orders dated 7.6.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh and dated 16.8.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh/Licensing Authority wherein the entries of Revolver bearing No. FG 13717 of 32 Bore made on 24.12.2009 have been cancelled.
Both the authorities have recorded a finding that the said revolver belonged to father of the petitioner namely Satish Chandra Gupta.
A categorical finding of fact has been recorded by both the authorities that the said revolver was not deposited by the petitioner after death of his father nor any application was moved by him for grant of licence on the basis of family heirloom policy i.e. on inheritance nor any such order has been passed by the competent authority.
The report of the City Magistrate/Prabhari Adhikari (Arms) dated 4.6.2015 indicates that on the application moved by the petitioner, Licence No. 2890/Qwarshi/Aligarh/N.P.B. revolver was approved on 28.11.2009 which was not made on the ground of inheritance. The petitioner got entries of revolver belonging to his father over the said licence on 24.12.2009 giving an impression that the same was granted on the ground of family heirloom policy.
A show cause notice has been served upon the petitioner and upon enquiry, it was found that all other heirs of the deceased Satish Chandra Gupta did not give 'No Objection' in favour of the petitioner.
These findings of fact returned by the Licensing Authority have not been challenged in the present petition rather it is sought to be submitted that after full satisfaction and completion of the the legal formality by the petitioner and after 'No Objection' given by his other brothers, the entries of firearm belonging to his father was made in the licence approved on 28.11.2009. Moreover, there is no allegation of misuse of firearm of his father nor any criminal case has been registered against him, and as such there was no occasion for the Licensing Authority to cancel the entry.
These submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in absence of the order dated 28.11.2009 being on record. Neither the application moved by the petitioner nor the copy
of order dated 28.11.2009 is on record which would demonstrate the grounds of grant of licence. Even otherwise, in none of the paragraphs of the writ petition, the petitioner submits that the order of approval of licence dated 28.11.2009 in his favour was passed on the ground of inheritance i.e. on the family heirloom policy, after 'No Objections' were given by other heirs i.e. his brothers.
The subsequent entries of revolver of his father over the licence granted to the petitioner on 28.11.2009 was not supported by any 'No Objection'.
In view thereof, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Licensing Authority in deleting the entry of Revolver bearing No. FG 13717 of 32 Bore over the Licence No. 2890 dated 28.11.2009 granted in favour of the petitioner and further in the order to deposit of said gun in the police station concerned.
The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed .
Order Date :- 16.8.2018 Brijesh
Munish Chandra Gupta
State Of U.P.
Sunita Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court