Disposed

Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2018WRIC/44165/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of an appeal against arms license cancellation due to acquittal. The court set aside the cancellation but refused mandatory restoration, remitting the matter to authorities for a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation order set aside; petition disposed without issuance of mandamus for restoration; matter remitted for fresh order.

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44165 of 2016

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 25.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur by which the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the District Magistrate-Kanpur Nagar has been rejected. By the latter order, the District Magistrate Kanpur had cancelled the arms license of the petitioner solely on the ground of an earlier criminal case having been lodged against him on 05.10.2012 being Case Crime No. 6 of 2011, under Section 41/102 Cr.P.C. and Section 411/201 I.P.C. read with Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station-Jaswant Nagar, District-Etawah.

¶6

The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the same ground. By means of a rejoinder affidavit filed in the present writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case noted above by order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Etawah. A copy of that order has also been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit.

¶7

Further learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal has attained finality.

¶8

In such facts though no pleading has been made in that regard in the rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole ground on which the arms license of the petitioner had been cancelled does not survive and that he is entitled to restoration of his arms license. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits though the criminal case may have resulted in acquittal, however, in view of sufficient time having been passed, the arms license cannot be restored automatically except after due appraisal of all facts and material as may be existing on date. Learned Standing Counsel submits further that the character of the petitioner would have to be examined before the restoration of the arms license.

¶9

Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the cancellation order being based mainly on one criminal case, and the petitioner having been acquitted in that case, the cancellation of the arms licence cannot be sustained for the reason given in the impugned order. Accordingly the order dated 24.03.2014 is set aside.

¶10

As to the prayer made by the petitioner for restoration of his arms license, no mandamus may be issued at this stage. However, the matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Etawah to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into account the current facts and circumstances as may be relevant.

¶11

District Magistrate, Etawah may pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶12

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 26.11.2018 S.Chaurasia

Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Nath Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Others

M/S Shri Vishnu Rice Mill Vs Commissioner Trade Tax U.P. Lucknow

Elcomponics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another

M/S Super Bhootpurv Sainik Suraksha Samit Vs Union of India and 2 Others

M/S Guru Filling Station Vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another

C/M Sri Sanatan Dharm Ram Leela Mahotsava Samiti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 07 Others