High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Dharmendra Kumar @ Babloo v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 53665 of 2005  RD-AH 8690 (1 May 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53665 of 2005
Dharendra Kumar alias Babloo Vs. State of U.P.& others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Despite time having been granted on 4.8.2005 for filing counter affidavit, the same has yet not been filed, although nearly eight months have passed. In such view of the matter this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
The petitioner was granted an arms license on 21.10.2003. By an order dated 23.12.2004 his license has been cancelled. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by order dated 8.7.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, Banda. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
The sole ground for cancellation of the arms license of the petitioner is that while making the application for grant of license the petitioner did not disclose about the pendency of a criminal case no. 112 of 2003 under sections 323/504/506 I.P.C. against the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that non-disclosure of pendency of a criminal case in making an application for grant of license cannot be made basis for the cancellation of his arms license as the Act or the Rules framed thereunder as well as the form in which the application for grant of license is made, do not require an applicant to make any such disclosure. The disclosure has to be made by an applicant only as to whether he has been convicted in any criminal case or not. In support of this the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of this Court rendered in Writ Petition no. 57175 of 2005 Pratap Narayan alias Hemraj vs. State of U.P., decided on 31.3.2006, and Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 10181 of 2003 Rajoo Singh vs. State of U.P., decided on 9.12.2005.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the aforesaid decisions of this Court, in my view the arms license of the petitioner could not have been cancelled merely because of non-disclosure by the petitioner that a criminal case was pending against him. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has been convicted in the said case. As such the grounds on which the arms license of the petitioner has been cancelled as well as the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed, are contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the orders impugned in this writ petition deserve to be set aside.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and the impugned orders dated 23.12.2004 and 8.7.2005 are quashed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.