Udayraj Pratap Tiwari @ Uday Pratap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6586

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9749 of 2023

Petitioner :- Udayraj Pratap Tiwari @ Uday Pratap Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajan Mishra,Mukesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:-

¶8

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.06.2023, issued by respondent no.2, contained in Annexure No.1 of this writ petition.

¶9

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.12.2021, issued by respondent no.3, contained in Annexure No.2 of this writ petition.

¶10

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the license of the petitioner."

¶11

The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was having an arms license since the year 2007. A first information report was lodged against the petitioner which was registered at Case Crime No.176 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 452, 427 and 307 IPC, Police Station Katra Bazar, District Gonda, which pertained to an incident having taken place adjacent to the house of the petitioner involving certain private individuals. A report was submitted by the Incharge Inspector dated 19.02.2021, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, indicating about the pendency of the criminal case and also opining that keeping in view the forthcoming elections there is every possibility of the arms license being misused and hence it was indicated that the arms license of the petitioner should be cancelled.

¶12

In pursuance thereof, vide order dated 04.03.2021, a copy of which is

¶13

Annexure-7 to the writ petition, the arms license of the petitioner was suspended and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1959') indicating about the pendency of the aforesaid case and that a charge sheet has also been filed in the said case and requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why his arms license should not be cancelled. The petitioner claims to have filed his reply which did not find favour with the competent authority who vide order dated 29.12.2021, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, cancelled the arms license of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal which too has been rejected vide order dated 21.06.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, and hence the petition.

¶14

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that apart from the fact that it is a settled proposition of law that the arms license cannot be cancelled on the ground of pendency of a criminal case yet another aspect of the matter is that the competent authority has opined that continuance of the arms license with the petitioner would not be in the interest of the security of public peace or public safety and hence based on the incident which occurred way back on 25.05.2017 and no other incident being reported subsequent to the said incident of the year 2017, as such, the competent authority has patently erred in law in cancelling the arms license of the petitioner, which fact has also not been appreciated by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner vide the order dated 21.06.2023, although while rejecting the appeal it has been contended that the weapon has been misused, which is a ground which does not find place in the report of the Incharge Inspector which had been submitted on 19.02.2021.

¶15

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit argued that on account of impending elections and the reasons as contained in the orders impugned, the arms license of the petitioner has been cancelled.

¶16

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

¶17

From perusal of records, it emerges that the petitioner was having an arms

¶18

license. An incident took place on 25.05.2017 next to the house of the petitioner. A first information report was lodged against the petitioner and several others on 25.05.2017. The arms license of the petitioner was never cancelled in the interregnum. A report was submitted by the Incharge Inspector on 19.02.2021 indicating about the said incident and of an FIR having been lodged against the petitioner and also indicating about the impending elections as per report dated 19.02.2021 i.e. after a period of almost 4 years of the date of alleged incident. Initially the authority suspended the arms license of the petitioner vide order dated 04.03.2021 and also required the petitioner to show cause as to why his arms license should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply which did not find favour with the competent authority who vide order dated 29.12.2021 cancelled the arms license of the petitioner.

¶19

From perusal of the order dated 29.12.2021 it emerges that the competent authority has considered that (a) an FIR had been lodged against the petitioner registered as Case Crime No.176 of 2017 on 25.05.2017, (b) there is apprehension of breach of public peace and public safety on account of the aforesaid incident, and (c) the petitioner has violated the specific terms and conditions of issuance of arms license.

¶20

Of the aforesaid three grounds, the first ground i.e. pendency of criminal case may not detain the Court inasmuch this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P reported in 2010 (5) ADJ 594 as well as in the case of Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow reported in 2017 (35) LCD 2017 has specifically held that pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of an arms license. Thus, the aforesaid ground cannot be said to be a valid ground for cancellation of the arms license.

¶21

So far as the ground of apprehension of public peace and public safety is concerned, the Court may observe that the alleged incident took place in May 2017, the report had been submitted by the Incharge Police Inspector on 19.02.2021 while the notice has been issued to the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, 1959 for cancellation of the arms license in March, 2021

¶22

i.e. after a period of almost four years from the date of the alleged incident. It is not the case of the authorities nor emerges from the order impugned dated 29.12.2021 that in the interregnum i.e. from May 2017 till submission of the report dated 19.02.2021 any incident took place which has been treated to be a danger to either public peace or public safety and thus the sole incident which occurred way back in May 2017 has been made the basis for cancellation of arms license of the petitioner. The aforesaid incident would be too isolated for the authorities to have proceeded after almost four years for cancellation of the arms license. Thus, the said ground for cancellation of the arms license of the petitioner also does not find favour with the Court and cannot be said to be justified.

¶23

So far as the third ground of cancellation i.e. the petitioner had been violating the terms and conditions of the arms license, nothing emerges from perusal of the order dated 29.12.2021 as to which terms and conditions of the arms license had been violated by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the incident which has been indicated in the order impugned being dated 25.05.2017 indicates about certain persons having allegedly assaulted a particular person with a 'Kudal' and not the licensed weapon of the petitioner. Thus, the said ground cannot also be said to be a valid ground for cancellation of the arms license of the petitioner. All these aspects of the matter have also not been considered by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.

¶24

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The orders impugned dated 29.12.2021 and 21.06.2023, copies of which are Annexures 2 and 1 respectively to the writ petition, are quashed.

¶25

Consequences to follow.

¶26

Order Date :- 23.1.2024 A. Katiyar

¶27

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

Udayraj Pratap Tiwari @ Uday Pratap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udayraj Pratap Tiwari @ Uday Pratap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education, Lucknow, U.P. and 3 Others

Amethi Ultrasound Center Kawa Road Amethi Thru. Its Owner Mohd. Kalim and Another vs Appropriate Authority/ State Appellate Authority Under P.C.P. N.D.T Act Thru. Chairman and 3 Others

Abdul Mazid Siddiqui vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Housing and Urban Planning Lko and 2 Others

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 4 Others

Bhawani Prasad Vs the State of U.P Thru. District Magistrate / Collector and 2 Others

Suresh Chanda Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies, Lko. and 2 Others