Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AKHILESH KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Akhilesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - C No. 35082 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 11153 (10 July 2006)

 

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'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without calling for a counter affidavit.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the arms licence of the petitioner has been cancelled by the District Magistrate, Firozabad, respondent no.2 vide order dated 1.6.2006 merely on the ground that two criminal cases have been lodged against the petitioner one in the year 2004 and the other 2000. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in both the criminal cases the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. but still the arms licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. The other submission is that the impugned order has been passed exparte on a date when the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted an adjournment application on the ground of his illness. A copy of the order sheet has been filed as Annexure No.5 to this writ petition which shows that on various dates the Presiding Officer had himself not been available or busy in administrative work because of which the case could not be taken up. On 1.6.2006 the junior counsel of learned counsel for the petitioner had filed an application before the Licencing Authority for adjournment on the ground of illness of his senior counsel. The same was rejected and the case was decided exparte order.

Considering the fact that on several occasions the case was adjourned  because of non availability of Presiding Officer, refusal to adjourn the case on the ground of illness of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be justified. The Licencing Authority ought to have granted time and also considered the case on merits as to whether merely because pendency of two criminal cases the arms licence of the petitioner could have been cancelled or not.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the exparte order dated 1.6.2006 deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly, quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Licencing Authority, respondent no.2 to take a fresh decision, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

This writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

Dt/-10.7.2006

Ru

w.p.35082.06


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.