Dismissed

Jitendra Pal Singh and Another v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024WRIC/16889/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Judicial Magistrate dismissed the writ petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act based on limitation. The court held that there was no sufficient explanation for the 14+ years delay, and proceedings cannot remain pending indefinitely.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no relief granted to release firearm or quash cancellation/appeal orders.

Jitendra Pal Singh and Another vs State of Up and 2… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110053

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16889 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jitendra Pal Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Sharma,Pramod Kumar,Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that petitioners' father had a licence of rifle which was transferred in the name of petitioner no.2/Virendra Pal Singh, son of Babu Singh. Petitioner no.1 applied for transfer of the aforesaid licence in his favour as petitioner no.2 is suffering from paralysis attack for the last 14 years. The application filed by petitioner no.1 was allowed and the aforesaid licence was transferred in the name of petitioner no.1 vide order dated 28.6.2023. Petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate for release of the fire-arm on 17.7.2023 but the same remain pending, accordingly, petitioners filed another application dated 18.9.2023 for release of fire-arm. In pursuance of the application dated 18.9.2023, a letter was issued in September, 2023 by the Addl. District Magistrate, Farrukhabad mentioning that fire-arm licence of petitioner no.2-Virendra Pal Singh has already been cancelled vide order dated 9.4.2009, as such, it is not possible to release the fire-arm. Petitioner no.2 filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act on 5.2.2024 against the order of cancellation dated 9.4.2009 along with prayer for condonation of delay. Respondent no.3/Commissioner vide impugned order dated 18.3.2024 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:-

¶8

"I. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 09.04.2009 passed by District Magistrate, Farukhabad rejecting the license of petitioner No.2.

¶9

II. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by respondent No.3 in case No. 527/ 2024 (Virendra Pal Vs State of U.P), Computer case No. C202403000000527.

¶10

III. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order passed in the month of September 2023 by Addl. District Magistrate, Farukhabad, revoking petitioner No. 1 from release of the gun from the gun house.

¶11

IV. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent to release the riffle .315 bore in favour of petitioner No.1."

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the arms licence has been transferred in the name of petitioner no.1 vide order dated 28.6.2023, subsequent communication made by the authorities that the aforesaid firearm licence in the name of petitioner no.2 has already been cancelled on 9.4.2009, cannot be accepted. He submitted that as soon as petitioners came to know about the order of cancellation dated 9.4.2009, the appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act has been filed, explaining the delay of 14 years 9 months 4 days but the appellate court/Commissioner has dismissed the appeal in arbitrary manner on the ground of limitation without considering the explanation given by the petitioner in appeal. He submitted that the impugned cancellation order as well as the appellate order be set aside and arms licence of the petitioners be restored.

¶13

On the other hand, learned standing counsel submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal, as such, the Commissioner has rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. He further submitted that the Commissioner has recorded the finding that the appeal is barred by limitation of 14 years 9 months 4 days and there is no evidence on record, regarding ailment of the petitioners as mentioned in the affidavit for such a long period, as such, no interference is required in the matter.

¶14

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶15

There is no dispute about the fact that the appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act filed by the petitioners along with prayer for condonation of delay of 14 years 9 months and 4 days has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

¶16

In order to appreciate the controversy, the perusal of impugned appellate order dated 18.3.2024 will be necessary which is as under:-

¶17

आदर े श

¶18

1- पतकवलव ा पर ी े श हहई। मम ै नन अपवलक ी थर ा कर ्थी े नवदकन अधधवक ा क ्त एवस ा ं उत ्त रदकतक ा रक ा ज ा ् य सरककर ा कक ओर सर ी े अनभययजन अधधकक ो रव ा कय ी कय ो धक ो रक ा ा -5 पररसवमक ी अधधननयम कर ा े प ्र कथरनक ा ा - पत नदनकस ं क ा 05.02.2024 पर सप ु नक तथक ा पतक ा वलव ा कक ी अवलय ा कन नकयक ो । ा

¶19

2- अपवलक ी थर ा ्थी / शपथकतकर वव ा रर ी न े द ् पक ्र ल नर ा े धकरक ा ा -5 पररसवमक ी अधधननयम कर ा े प ्र कथरनक ा ा - पत कर सकथ सस ा ं लग शपथपत मन कथन नकयक ्न हम ा नक अधव ै नस ी थ न ् यक ् यक ा लय कक ा समस ी त कक ् यरवक ा हव ा एकपकवय हम ी । अपव ै लक ी थर ा ्थी / शपथकतकर ा 14-15 वरर सर े बरकबर बव ा मक ी र चल रहक ा हम ा । उसनर ै अपवल दक ी धख ा ि ल करनर े मन जकनबयझकर नवलम ा ् ब नहह नकयक ीं हम ा ै , बललक बवमक ी रव ा कर ी े ककरण वह ा समय सर े अपवल दक ी धख ा ि ल नहह कर सकक ीं । उक ा आधक ्त र पर धक ा रक ा ा -5 पररसवमक ी अधधननयम ा कक लक ा भ प ा ्र दकन करतर ा े हहए नवलम ् ब मकफ करनर ा े कक यक ी चनक ा कक ा रयव ी हम ी । ै

¶20

3- अधवनस ी थ न ् यक ् यक ा लय धजलक ा मधजस ा ट ् ट र े , फररख ि कबक ा द दक ा रक ा सस ा ं 0-1139/2006, सरककर ा बनकम वव ा रर ी न े द ् पक ्र ल ा , अनतररत धक ् रक ा ा 17(3) आयपध अधधननयम ु , थकनक ा रक ा जर ा े पप ु र , जनपद फररख ि कबक ा द मन पक ा ररत आदर ा े श नदनकस ं क ा 09.04.2009 कर े नवरद ्ध नदनकस ं क ा 13.02.2024 कय आयपध ननयम मन ननधक ु र ा रत अवधध 30 नदन सर े लरभर 5384 नदन (14 वरर 09 मकह ा 04 नदन ) कर े नवलम ् ब सर े यह अपवल दक ी धख ा ि ल कक रयव ी हम ी । इस नवलम ै ् ब कय मक ो फ करनर ा े हर े तप उसनर े अपनर े शपथपत मन कथन नकयक हम ा नक आकर ै े नपत आदर े श एकपकवय हम ी । वह ै 14-15 वरर तक बवमक ी र रहक ा ा , इसधलए समय सर े अपवल दक ी धख ा ि ल नहह कर सकक ीं । ा शपथकतकर ा / अपवलक ी थर ा नर ्थी े अपनव बव ी मक ी रव ा कक ी कय ा ई सक ो क ा य दक ्ष् धख ा ि ल नहह नकयक ीं हम ा और न ै नहव पररसव ी मक ी अधधननयम कर ा े प ्र कथरनक ा ा - पत एवस ं शपथपत मन उक नवलम ्त ् ब कय स ो पषव ् ककत हव ी नकयक हम ा । उसनर ै े अपनर े शपथपत मन यह भव उलर ी े ख ि नहह नकयक ीं हम ा नक उसर ै े प ्र थम बकर कब ा और नकस मकध ा यम सर ् े आकर े नपत आदर े श कक जक ी नकक ा रव ा हहई। अपव ी ल अत ी ् यधधक ककलबक ा धधत हम ा । ऐसव ै लस ी थनत मन नवलम ् ् ब मकफ नकयक ा जक ा नक ा उनचत एवस ा ं नयक ् यय ा नचत नहह ो हम ीं । ै तदद नप ु सकर पररसव ा मक ी अधधननयम कक ा प ा ्र कथरनक ा ा - पत नदनकस ं क ा 05.02.2024 ननरसत नकयक ् जकतक ा हम ा । ननररक ै नव ा भव ी गक ी ह ा तक ्य स ा तर पर ननरस ् त कक ् जक ी तव ा हम ी । बक ै द आवश ा ् यक ककयरवक ा हव ा पतकवलव ा दक ी धख ा ि ल दफ ् तर हय। ो

¶21

नदनकस ं क ा 18-03-2024

¶22

( अनमत र प ु क ) ा आयपक ु , ्त ककनपप ा ु र मणडल। ्

¶23

The perusal of the record demonstrates that the appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act has been filed by the petitioners after 14 years 9 months 4 days and the appellate court has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. The perusal of the record fully demonstrates that there is no proper explanation for the inordinate delay of 14 years 9 months 4 days in filing the appeal against the order of cancellation of arms licence. The proceeding in respect to the arms licence cannot be reopened at any time or kept pending for the indefinite period.

¶24

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, no interference is required in the matter.

¶25

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.7.2024 C.Prakash

¶27

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Pal Singh and Another v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Pal Singh and Another v. State of Up 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

Shanker and Another vs State of Up and 14 Others

M/S Harish Electricals and Machenicals Contractors vs the Regional Director Employees and 2 Others

Zafrul Haque vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Dinesh Nishad vs State of Up and 19 Others

Rajesh Kumar vs State of Up and 2 Others

Maharaj Singh vs State of Up and 4 Others