Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARI NATH PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hari Nath Pandey v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home & Others - WRIT - C No. 7873 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 157 (3 January 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.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7873 of 2004

Hari Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

The petitioner was in the Indian Army. He retired as Hawaldar in the year 1984. After his retirement he was granted an arms license and he was employed as security guard with the State Bank of India. Case Crime No. 164A/88 under sections 147/148/336/307 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner in the year 1988. Another Case Crime No. 90/92 under sections 147/148/149/307/440 I.P.C. was also registered against the petitioner.  Thereafter, in the year 1998, the license of the petitioner was suspended by the District Magistrate, Varanasi and after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, by order dated 9.8.1999 the license of the petitioner was cancelled. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, respondent no.2 on 28.1.2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 9.8.1999 and 28.1.2004 passed by the District Magistrrate, Varanasi and the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

I have heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Despite time having been granted on several occasions, no counter affidavit has been filed although nearly two years have passed. In such circumstances, the writ petition has been heard and is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

The case of the petitioner is that he was falsely implicated in the two cases because of village rivalry and in both the cases he has been acquitted by the courts of law. It has further been stated that the Commissioner has wrongly taken into consideration certain criminal cases of 1972, 1973 and 1980, which were not registered against the petitioner, but against his brother. During the said period the petitioner was serving the Indian Army from where he retired only in the year 1984. Without considering this aspect of the case the Commissioner has relied on such cases which were not even registered against the petitioner and made it basis for dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. It is accepted by the appellate authority that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal cases which had been filed against him. As such, since the arms license had been cancelled only on the ground of involvement of the petitioner in certain criminal cases and once the petitioner has been acquitted in all such cases, the ground for cancellation of the license would no longer be there. Such view has also been taken by this Court in the case of Ram Murat Vs. State of U.P. and others 2002(2) A.W.C.1079.

In such view of the matter, since there is no criminal case pending against the petitioner and he has already been acquitted in the two criminal cases which were registered against him, the ground for cancellation of his arms license does not exist any longer. The orders passed by the authorities below are thus liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 9.8.1999 passed by the District Magistrate,Varanasi, respondent no. 3 and order dated 28.1.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, respondent no.2 are quashed. No order as to costs.

Dt/-3.1.2006

Ru


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.