Disposed

Shiddhi Nath v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2018WRIC/7723/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised judicial review to set aside an order cancelling a petitioner's firearm license, noting his acquittal in the underlying criminal case. The court held that the licensing authority must reconsider the cancellation order now that the basis of grievance has lost efficacy.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to apply for revocation of cancellation order within two weeks; Licensing Authority directed to decide within two months.

Shiddhi Nath Vs State of U.P. and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7723 of 2013

¶3

Petitioner :- Shiddhi Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

The present petition is directed against the order of cancellation of fire-arm license of the petitioner on the ground that the First Information Report namely Case Crime No.414 of 2007 under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was lodged against him.

¶7

The Licensing Authority while passing the order dated 16.1.2010 had recorded its opinion that there was likelihood of breach of public order and peace inasmuch as, the dispute was going on between the petitioner and other family members regarding the partition of joint property. Proceedings under Section 107/116 IPC were also undertaken against the petitioner as per the report of S.H.O., Thana, Jaswant Nagar dated 26.5.2008.

¶8

This order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.1.2012 with the same reason.

¶9

In the counter affidavit, learned Standing Counsel has supported the order impugned with the submission that the opinion formed by the Licensing Authority not to allow the petitioner to continue with the fire-arm was based on the objective considerations. Reasoning had been recorded by the Licensing Authority in arriving at its opinion. This Court in exercise of power of judicial review may not interfere in the said decision.

¶10

However, alongwith the rejoinder affidavit filed on 25.5.2018, the petitioner has filed the judgement and order dated 30.3.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.104 of 2014 arising out of the Criminal Case No.414 of 2007 wherein the petitioner has been acquitted. A perusal of the judgment indicates that the acquittal of the petitioner was clean inasmuch as, the prosecution has failed to establish that the petitioner was involved in the alleged crime under Section 307 IPC. The injured witness was declared hostile and even the injury report Exhibit Ka-5 was doubted by this Court.

¶11

In view of the above noted fact, this Court is of the considered opinion that with the acquittal of the petitioner by the competent court of law in the criminal case and the fact that the involvement of the petitioner was not established from the evidence before it, the allegations levelled against the petitioner forming basis of the cancellation order lose its efficacy. The ground for cancellation of license that the petitioner had misused his fire-arm in the incident occurred on 19.12.2007 which has led to lodging of the criminal

¶12

case namely Case Crime No.414 of 2000, therefore, obliterate.

¶13

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:-

¶14

" 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."

¶15

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 cancellation thereof for the purpose of maintaining peace and harmony in the society. The assessment of administrative authorities with 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.

¶16

In view of the above discussion, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the orders dated 16.1.2010 and 12.1.2012 on the principle that with the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, fresh consideration is to be given by the Licensing Authority, the present petition is being disposed of with the directions as follows:-

¶17

(1) The petitioner shall move application before the Licensing Authority for revocation of order of cancellation of fire-arm license of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks along with certified copy of this order.

¶18

(2) In case the petitioner moves such an application, the Licensing Authority would be under obligation to take expeditious decision in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of submission of such application

¶19

Order Date :- 29.8.2018 Jyotsana

Shiddhi Nath v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiddhi Nath v. State of U.P. and 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

Ravindra Nath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru Secry. and 2 Others

Umesh Verma Vs State of U P and Another

Ram Pyare Bind Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Divisional Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I Vs Raman Singh and Another

Ramvir Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Colonel Tejandra Pal Tyagi Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Ghaziabad and 2 Others