Quashed

Sudhir Shukla Objection Filed v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2023WRIC/1000655/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court judge quashed orders cancelling a petitioner's arms license and dismissing the subsequent appeal, ruling that mere possession by another person does not satisfy Section 17(3) of the Arms Act.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation orders dated 22.07.2011 and 23.05.2012 quashed; petitioner's arms license restored within two months.

Sudhir Shukla Objection Filed Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:77084

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1000655 of 2013 Petitioner :- Sudhir Shukla Objection Filed Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow And Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Abhishek Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Shri Anoop Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.07.2011, whereby the arms license granted to the petitioner was cancelled as well as the appellate order dated 23.05.2012 whereby the appeal was dismissed. The allegation against the petitioner, holder of the arms license was that he had given the arm to another person and, thus, the continuance of license in favour of the petitioner was not justified. In the report, which led to the passing of the cancellation order, reference to case crime no.269 of 2011 under Section 188 I.P.C. was also made. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal by holding that the petitioner was guilty of keeping his arm in possession of another person which cannot be termed as a respectful behaviour.

¶8

Contention of counsel for petitioner is that the cancellation of arm can happen only when the conditions specified under Section 17 (3) of Arms Act are met.

¶9

In the present case, even assuming for the sake of argument, that the petitioner has handed over his arm to another person would not attract any limitation as prescribed under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act. Reasoning as contained in the impugned order are clearly contrary to the mandate of Section 17 (3) of Arms Act as such the impugned orders cannot stand and, therefore, the order dated 22.07.2011 as well as the appellate order dated 23.05.2012 are hereby quashed.

¶10

Respondents are directed to restore the arms license of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months.

¶11

Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶12

Order Date :- 23.11.2023/-Amit K-

¶13

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sudhir Shukla Objection Filed v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Shukla Objection Filed v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lucknow and 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

Rajendra Kumar Vs Commissioner Lko.and 2 Ors.

Shafipur Rahman Vs Additional District Judge Court NO.5 Gonda and Ors.

U. P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Thru Managing Director Vs the Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court NO.2 Lucknow and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Singh and Another Vs Special Judge Sc/St Act Gonda and Others

Jasveer Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and Others

Ram Sevak Singh Vs Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank Thru Its Managing Director and Ors.