Disposed

Dharmendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2018WRIC/27368/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot be a ground for cancelling a firearm license under the Arms Act. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the District Magistrate for a fresh decision after his acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach District Magistrate Bulandshahr within three weeks accompanied by order and acquittal judgment for fresh decision within two months.

Dharmendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27368 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of cancellation of firearm license which according to him was based on the lodging of the criminal case namely Case Crime No.88 of 2004 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 396/34 I.P.C.

¶7

The submission is that the cancellation order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority solely on this ground. However, in the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 13.3.2018 passed by the competent court of law.

¶8

It is submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted, the ground for cancellation of fire-arm license would obliterate.

¶9

Even otherwise, the question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of licence under the Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1978 AWC, 122 (Sheo Prasad Mishra vs. District Magistrate) . The Division Bench has relied upon the earlier decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Masi Uddin vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573 wherein it has been held:-

¶10

" A licence may be cancelled, inter-alia, on the ground that it is "necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety, to do so. The District Magistrate has not recorded a finding that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the licence. The mere existence of enmity between a licencee and another person would not establish the "necessary" connection with security of the public peace or public safety. In the case before us also the District Magistrate has not recorded any finding that it was necessary to cancel the licence for the security of public peace or for public safety. All that he has done is to have referred to some applications and reports lodged against the petitioner. The mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis for cancelling the licence. The order passed by the District Magistrate and that passed by the Commissioner cannot, therefore, be upheld on the basis of anything contained in Section 17(3)(b) of the Act."

¶11

Similar view has been taken by this Court in various decisions relying upon the Division Bench judgment passed in Sheo Prasad Mishra (supra) . There is no doubt that the District Magistrate and the Commissioner i.e. administrative authorities are bound to take appropriate action in the matter of grant of licence and also its cancellation for the purpose of maintaining peace and harmony in the society. The assessment of administrative authorities with

¶12

regard to grant or cancellation of licence should not be interfered in usual course by the Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction unless there is illegality or arbitrariness.

¶13

Considering the said arguments and in view of the said legal position that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of fire-arm license, it would be appropriate that after acquittal of the petitioner by the competent court of law, fresh consideration be given by the Licensing Authority.

¶14

It is noteworthy that till date the petitioner has not approached the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr for redressal of his grievances. The present petition is, therefore, being disposed of with the following directions:-

¶15

(1) The petitioner shall approach the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr within a period of three weeks alongwith the certified copy of this order and the judgment of acquittal dated 13.3.2018.

¶16

(2) In case, such an application is moved, the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr would be under obligation to take fresh decision after seeking fresh reports with regard to the involvement of the petitioner during the interregnum period, if any.

¶17

(3) An expeditious decision, in accordance with law, shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of filing of the said application.

¶18

The release of gun to the petitioner would be subject matter of enquiry and fresh orders to be passed by the licensing authority.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.8.2018 Jyotsana

Dharmendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aslam Khan Vs State of U P and Another

Co-Operative Cane Development Union Ltd. Vs Controlling Authority, Under the Provisions of Payment of Gratuity ACT,1972 and 2 Others

Lakhan Singh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Asif Khan Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Mudit Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Ram Charan and Sons and 4 Others Vs Punjab National Bank and 3 Others