High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Nirmala Yadav v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 5958 of 2007  RD-AH 2104 (8 February 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5958 of 2007.
Smt. Nirmala Yadav ....... Petitioner
State of U.P. & others ....... Respondents.
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the District Magistrate dated 8th August, 2005 passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the arm licence and the orders dated 14th February, 2006 and 9th October, 2006 passed by the appellate authority.
A notice was given to the petitioner for cancellation, which was replied. In the notice it was stated that the petitioner is original resident of Azamgarh and against petitioner's husband, Ramayan Yadav, several criminal cases have been registered at districts Azamgarh and Mau. Notice further stated that petitioner's licencee gun is used by the petitioner's husband and the licence has been obtained by concealing the relevant facts. The petitioner submitted reply to the notice before the District Magistrate and in spite of the opportunity no one appeared. The District Magistrate recorded finding that the relevant facts pertaining to registration of cases against petitioner's husband at Azamgarh and Mau were not disclosed and the application was filed from district Pratapgarh by concealing all relevant facts. The District Magistrate cancelled the licence, against which order appeal was filed. In the appeal no one appeared, which was dismissed by the appellate authority noticing the fact on merits.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that cases registered were against the petitioner's husband and not against the petitioner. He further contended that petitioner was shifted from Azamgarh to Pratapgarh due to business reasons.
I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
The petitioner was original resident of district Azamgarh and the criminal history of petitioner's husband was concealed and by concealment licence was obtained. The petitioner and her husband are members of joint family. The District Magistrate observed that in the event all relevant facts were brought on the record the recommendation for grant of licence would not have been made. The District Magistrate has also observed that the gun of the petitioner is being used by her husband. Sufficient grounds have been given by the District Magistrate for cancelling the arm licence. The petitioner did not appear before the appellate authority and the appellate authority was satisfied that the order of the District Magistrate was liable to be maintained on merits also. The notice itself mentioned that 12 cases were registered against the petitioner's husband, which also included the cases under Section 302 of I.P.C. No grounds have been made out to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.