Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMOL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Amol Singh v. State Of U.P. & Another - WRIT - C No. 3912 of 2000 [2005] RD-AH 7384 (13 December 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the orders dated 16.12.1998 and 4.1.2000 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 1.

The petitioner submits that he is having DBBL Gun No.2879.  The petitioner has not misused the gun at any point of time.  Two cases against the petitioner under sections 323 and 404 and another case under sections 147, 148, 323 and 504 was registered but the petitioner has been acquitted.  In spite of the aforesaid fact the gun license of the petitioner has been cancelled by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of the fact a finding has been recorded by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri that the petitioner has been acquitted in all the cases but in spite of the recording of the aforesaid finding the license of the petitioner has been cancelled.

The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 18 of the Army Act.  The appellate authority has also without assigning any reason that what are the circumstances, not to permit the petitioner to have the license.  The authorities below has not recorded any finding that the petitioner has misused the gun license at any point of time, therefore, the order passed by the authorities is liable to be quashed.

As the appeal of the petitioner has already been dismissed the petitioner has approached this Court.

The Learned Standing Counsel was granted time for filing the counter affidavit vide its order dated 25.1.2000 but no counter affidavit has been filed up-till-date.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record.

From the record it is clear that the District Magistrate, Mainpuri, while cancelling the license of the petitioner has recorded a finding to this effect that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the cases which were pending against the petitioner.  Only on the basis of the report, that the petitioner appears to be having a mentality of criminal and he can misuse the gun, therefore, in the interest of public it will not be feasible to continue the license in favour of the petitioner.  The District Magistrate has not recorded any reason that what are the circumstances which lead the licensing authority to satisfy that the petitioner is not a person to whom the license be permitted to continue. The Court has perused the order passed by the Commissioner also. The Commissioner being an appellate authority was obliged to look into the circumstances and has not recorded a finding and has not given any reason why the petitioner's license is being cancelled.  Only reason has been stated that it will not be in the public interest to permit the petitioner for having a gun license.

In my opinion, this is not sufficient reason which can lead the cancellation of the license of a person.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the orders dated 16.12.1998 and 4.1.2000 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 1 are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, Mainpuri to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above and will pass a detailed and reasoned order according to law preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

13.12.2005

SKD/3912/2000  


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.