Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 642 (ALL)

Anil Kumar Singh v. District Magistrate

1994-09-22

K.C.BHARGAVA

body1994
JUDGMENT : K.C. BHARGAVA, J. 1. By means of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.6.1978 and 6.2.1979 contained in Annexure 3 and 5 passed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that proceedings were initiated by opposite party no. 1 by means of a notice to show cause as to why the licence of the Petitioner's gun bearing No. DBBL 95907 be not cancelled. The Petitioner furnished his reply. The Petitioner on account of enmity was roped in a case u/s 396, I.P.C. When he was put up for identification in that case, none could identify him and no charge-sheet was submitted against him, hence he was discharged on 13.6.1975. Thereafter he got back his gun on 26.7.1975 by the order of the Munsif Magistrate. 3. Thereafter another notice was issued on 9.10.1975 by opposite party No. 1 to show cause as to why his gun licence may not be cancelled. The reply was sent on 29.10.75. On the orders of the opposite party No. 1, gun was deposited on 17.12.1975. Another case was started against the Petitioner in August, 1976 under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 324, I.P.C. and in that case (Sessions Trial No. 174/76) he has been acquitted on 9.7.1977 by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. In a case u/s 3 of the U.P. Goondas Act, the order of externment for a period of six months was passed against the Petitioner on 18.5.1978. The Commissioner, Faizabad vide his order dated 23.8.1978 allowed the appeal and quashed the order passed by opposite party No. 1 under the Goondas Act. 4. No counter-affidavit has been filed inspite of sufficient time given and pendency of this writ petition since 1979 i.e. for the last 15 years. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the State counsel have been heard. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that both the cases on the basis of which the licence of the Petitioner was cancelled, have ended in his favour and now there exists no ground for cancellation of the licence. According to the learned Counsel, the cancellation order dated 26.6.1978, which was passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, was confirmed on 6.2.1979 by the Commissioner. According to the learned Counsel, the cancellation order dated 26.6.1978, which was passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, was confirmed on 6.2.1979 by the Commissioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the fact that both the cases ended in his favour was placed before the learned Commissioner before passing the order dated 6.2.1979, but the learned Commissioner did not discuss those matters and passed the order confirming the order of the District Magistrate. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of passing the order dated 6.2.1979 by the Commissioner, there was no ground on which the gun licence of the Petitioner could have been cancelled. Both the grounds were wiped off before passing of the order of the learned Commissioner and the learned Commissioner could not have passed this order unless there was some fresh material against the Petitioner on that date. in this connection, it will be useful to refer to the case of Ram Bodh Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, 1985 (11) ALR 114, in which it has been held that once Petitioner was acquitted, those cases could not furnish material for cancellation of his licence. Therefore, on the date on which the Commissioner passed his order, it cannot be said that the cancellation of licence was in the public interest and this fact could not be substantiated by the State. Therefore, in view of these facts the cancellation of gun licence of the Petitioner cannot be said to be valid and the order dated 26th June, 1978 passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh contained in Annexure 3 and the order dated 6th February, 1979 passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad contained in Annexure-5 are liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that opposite party No. 1 District Magistrate, Pratapgarh should be directed to consider the renewal of his licence. Learned Counsel for the State has argued that the Petitioner will have to apply afresh for obtaining the gun licence. This contention of the learned Counsel for the State cannot be accepted because he has already been granted licence and his licence was cancelled by the District Magistrate on the grounds as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, which are no more there. Therefore, it is the duty of the District Magistrate now to consider the renewal of the licence within a particular period. Therefore, it is the duty of the District Magistrate now to consider the renewal of the licence within a particular period. 8. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 26th June, 1978 contained in Annexure 3 passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh and the order dated 6th February, 1979 contained in Annexure 5 passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad are quashed and it is directed that the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh shall consider the renewal of the gun licence of the Petitioner and shall pass a speaking order within 15 days of production of a certified copy of this order before him. Alter that, the gun shall be released in favour of the Petitioner.