Dismissed

Vakilu Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2018WRIC/49867/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the cancellation of a firearm license on the ground of mere criminal case involvement. The court held that the license was correctly cancelled due to breach of public peace via firearm misuse, distinguishing the cited precedent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition lacking merit was dismissed, upholding the cancellation of the firearm license.

Vakilu Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 49867 of 2016

¶3

Petitioner :- Vakilu Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Ji Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 22.04.2016 passed by the District Magistrate-Mirzapur by which that authority had cancelled the fire arm license issued to the petitioner. That order has been confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur by his order dated 04.08.2016.

¶6

Short submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the petitioner had been falsely implicated in one criminal case with respect to which there also exists a cross case lodged by the petitioner. Relying on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Rajesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2017 (99) ALLCC 511 , it has been submitted that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot be a ground to cancel the fire arm license under Section 12 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

¶7

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that fire arm license of the petitioner had not been cancelled owing to registration of a single criminal case against him but on account of allegation of breach of public peace and public safety caused by the petitioner, upon misuse of the licensed fire arm. It is therefore submitted that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly distinguishable and the orders passed by the authorities do not call for any interference.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears that the licensing authority had taken note of the facts that in an incident dated 30.12.2015, the petitioner was found involved in random firing accompanied with an assault carried out on certain named persons in a public place. Certain medical evidence was also referred to by the licensing authority in that regard. The police report also appears to have been submitted to the licensing authority with respect to the aforesaid allegation. It was in such circumstances that the licensing authority reached a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of having breached public peace and public safety by misusing the licensed fire arm possessed by him.

¶9

The aforesaid grounds as found favour with the licensing authority are clearly contemplated under Section 17(3) of the Act, inasmuch as, under Clause (b) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 17, the licensing authority may suspend or revoke a pre-existing fire arm license, if the licensing authority has reason to believe that such license is required to be cancelled in the interest of public peace or public safety. Insofar as such reasons are found is clearly recorded in the impugned order and is based on material and evidence existing on record on being the factual allegation of the petitioner having misused his firearm in a public place as to have also resulted in corresponding injuries, there does not appear any infirmity in the order passed by the appellate authority who has confirmed the same.

¶10

The petitioner is a member of a civil society. He has been found - on the basis of material before the licensing authority, to have involved himself in an act of breach of public peace by use of a licensed firearm. At present there does not appear to exist any material before the licensing authority to hold the finding recorded by that authority to be either perverse or the action of cancellation of licence, arbitrary.

¶11

The further submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has yet not been convicted in the criminal case arising from the alleged incident may not be a fact that may be decisive for the purpose of proceedings under Section 17(3) of the Act, in the facts of this case. It will remain a matter to be considered at the proper stage which would be if a judgment is made in favour of the petitioner in the criminal trial that may entitle the petitioner to move a fresh application for grant of fire arm license.

¶12

The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 14.12.2018 S.Chaurasia

Vakilu Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakilu Khan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhoom Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suresh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shri 1008 Parshavnath Digambar Jain Mandir Samiti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Balbir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ravindra and 39 Others Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner Noida and 03 Others

Vilok Pal Vs State of U P and 2 Others