Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BRIJESH KUMAR JAISWAL versus STATE OF U.P.& OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Brijesh Kumar Jaiswal v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - C No. 11508 of 2000 [2005] RD-AH 7644 (16 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 order dated 23.4.1999 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and commanding the respondents not to insist the petitioner to deposit the firearm license in pursuance of the impugned order.

The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner who was the holder of gun license No.2810 and the same was granted on 27.4.1993.  He was serving in the Medical College, Gorakhpur.  The license of the petitioner was renewed from time to time up to 31.12.2001.  The petitioner after completion of the job from Medical College, Gorakhpur shifted his permanent residence at Dilejakpur, Gorakhpur.  It appears that on the basis of the some report the licensing authority, the respondent No.2 suspended the license of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner has concealed the fact regarding his address and has obtained the license on forged address.  The further direction was that the petitioners will deposit the arm to the police station concerned.  The said order was passed on 23.9.1999.  Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Vide order dated 15.3.2000 the learned Standing Counsel was granted time to file the counter affidvit and the impugned order dated 23.4.1999 was stayed.  

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that prior to suspending the license of the petitioner, no notice and opportunity has been given and an allegation regarding obtaining the license by committing fraud and forgery has been alleged against the petitioner.  In such a way it has been submitted that whether the petitioner has obtained the license by committing some forgery. For that purpose the petitioner would have been given an opportunity and notice.  As the same has not been given, the order-dated 23.4.1999 is liable to be quashed.  The further submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that as the petitioner was serving at Medical College, Gorakhpur, therefore, he has given the address of medical college, Gorakhpur and subsequently when he has shifted to another place, it cannot constitute or an impression to this effect be drawn by the authorities by changing the residence, the petitioner, has committed an illegality and forgery.  

A counter affidvit has been filed.  In para 4 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that in view of the Full Bench Decision reported in 1984, AWC 145 C.P.Sahu Vs. State of U.P. and others, the authority has got no jurisdiction to suspend the license.  But it has been further submitted that now in view of 1998 AWC 1253 Tale Singh Vs. State of U.P., licensing authority has been conferred a power to suspend the license pending proceeding for cancellation.                         As such, there is no illegality in the order.  

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

As the license of the petitioner was suspended without any notice and opportunity, an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner.                                  If it is expected that licensing authority has a power to suspend the license pending inquiry, but if a direction to deposit the arm or gun has been directed with suspension, in my opinion it will amount to cancellation of license pending inquiry. From the order it is clear that the authority has directed to deposit the arm.  In view of the order passed by the respondents it cannot be sustained and such, is liable to be quashed and the matter is remitted back to the licensing authority to pass any appropriate and detailed order according to law after affording full opportunity to the petitioner.

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

16.12.2005

SKD/11508/2000


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.