Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SATYA NARAYAN versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' HOME SECY. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Satya Narayan v. State Of U.P. Thru' Home Secy. & Another - WRIT - C No. 29813 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 11455 (13 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

COURT NO.25

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 29813 OF 2004

Satya Narayan.                 ....Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and another. ......Respondents

***************

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.07.2004 passed by District Magistrate, Mahoba  refusing to renew the arm licence no.232/11C of the petitioner.  The renewal of the licence has been refused on the ground that the District Magistrate, Hamirpur in its order dated 23.12.1985 found the said licence forged.

Heard Sri N.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Hamirpur vide its order dated 23.12.1985 on the ground that it was forged and case crime no.104 of 1987, under sections 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. had been registered.  Petitioner had challenged the order-dated 23.12.1985 before this Court in Writ Petition No.4198 of 1986, Satya Narayan Vs. District Magistrate, Hamirpur and another. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.19996 with the observation that if it is a fact that in case crime no.104 of 1987, police station Kotwali, Mahoba, district Hamirpur it has been concluded by the court that the licence of the petitioner was granted validly by a competent authority in that event it will be open for the petitioner to move the District Magistrate, Mahoba, the successor of the District Magistrate, Hamirpur, for passing an appropriate order in regard to his licence which, if made, shall be considered along with the entire relevant records and disposed of objectively by assigning reasons.  The aforesaid criminal case has been finally decided by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba vide its order dated 12.12.1998, in which it has been held that there is no evidence on record that the licence issued to the petitioner was forged and the petitioner was accordingly acquitted. He submitted that the petitioner thereafter, moved an application on 24.02.1999 before the District Magistrate, Mahoba, which is annexure no.SA-2, alongwith the copy of the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba. When the application could not be disposed of, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.9617 of 2001, in which direction was issued to the District Magistrate, Mahoba to dispose of the application. He further submitted that the District Magistrate, Mahoba has issued  notice under section 17 (i) of the Arms Act for the cancellation of the licence. The said notice was discharged vide order dated 13.07.2004. He submitted that on the very next day vide order dated 14.07.2004 District Magistrate, Mahoba rejected the application of the petitioner for the renewal of the licence on the basis of the earlier order passed by District Magistrate, Hamirpur on 23.12.1985, in which licence of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that it was found forged without looking into the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba in which the licence of the petitioner was found valid and the petitioner was acquitted in case crime no.104 of 1987, under sections 420, 468, 471 I.P.C.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the orders referred by learned counsel for the petitioner and also impugned order.

In my opinion, order of the District Magistrate, Mahoba dated 14.07.2004 is not sustainable. District Magistrate, Mahoba is wrong in saying that the petitioner has not moved any application, while the copy of the application is annexed as annexure SA-2, which has not been disputed in the counter affidavit. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner has been acquitted in case crime no.104 of 1987 (case no.209 of 1998) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba vide its order dated 12.12.1998. In its order, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba  had categorically held that there is no evidence by which it is proved that the licence of the petitioner was forged. Once it is held by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba  that the arm licence issued to the petitioner was not forged, reliance placed by the District Magistrate, Mahoba on the earlier order dated 23.12.1985 passed by District Magistrate, Hamirpur and the report dated 26.03.1987 given by the Joint Magistrate, Mahoba is wholly irrelevant. It is not the case of the respondent that the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba has been challenged in any Court. Thus, the rejection of the renewal application on the ground that the licence was found forged is wholly unjustified. It is a matter of utter surprise that notice under section 17 (i) of the Arms Act was issued on 15.04.2004 for the cancellation of the arm licence. The notice under section 17 (i) of the Arms Act for the cancellation of the arm licence could only be issued when there was a valid licence in existence. The said notice has been subsequently discharged.

For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 14.07.2004 passed by District Magistrate, Mahoba, annexure-5 to the writ petition, is set aside. District Magistrate, Mahoba is directed to pass appropriate order on the renewal application in accordance to the law in the light of the observations made above within a period of one month from the date of the presentation of the certified copy of this order.

Dt.13.07.2006

R./


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.