Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2929 (ALL)

Dhiraj Singh v. State Of U. P.

2017-12-14

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 03.06.2015, by which the District Magistrate has rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of Fire Arm Licence on the ground of pendency of Writ Petition No. 3268 (MB) of 2012 (Jitendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) and the interim order passed therein dated 07.10.2013 and because of the pendency of Special Appeal (Defective) No. 163 of 2014 (State of U.P. vs. Chandra Raj Tripathi) and interim order granted therein on 14.02.2014. 2. The facts, in brief, as have come out from the writ petition and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner had initially made an application for grant of licence of Revolver/Pistol on 31.01.2012, and thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 20922 of 2012, in which this Court passed an order dated 01.05.2012 directing the District Magistrate to decide the application of the petitioner within a period of four months. The application of the petitioner was rejected on 20.06.2012 and the petitioner filed an Appeal thereafter, wherein the matter was remanded by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division. 3. When the District Magistrate, Allahabad was not deciding the case afresh as directed by the Commissioner in his order dated 19.09.2013, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6921 of 2014, which was disposed of by this Court on 05.02.2014 directing the District Magistrate to decide the application of the petitioner. The matter remained pending and the petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (Civil) No. 23992 of 2014 before this Court alleging therein that the District Magistrates all over the State of U.P. were realizing illegal amounts towards alleged fees of private bodies like, Rifle Club and Zila Khelkood Protsahan Samiti and Vikas Parishad, etc. and this Court directed the Principal Secretary, (Home) to take appropriate measures thereon to prevent practice of collecting unauthorised amounts. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that after the order dated 28.04.2014 passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation (Civil) No. 23992 of 2014, the District Magistrate, Allahabad became annoyed and rejected the petitioner's application on 18.06.2014. 5. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 62233 of 2014, which was allowed by this Court on 22.11.2014 and the matter was remanded to the Authorities concerned to take decision afresh. 6. 5. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 62233 of 2014, which was allowed by this Court on 22.11.2014 and the matter was remanded to the Authorities concerned to take decision afresh. 6. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the Police Authorities again submitted a report on 19.12.2014 recommending grant of Fire Arm Licence in favour of the petitioner, but the District Magistrate, Allahabad rejected the application of the petitioner on 02.01.2015 and the petitioner again filed Writ Petition No. 18244 of 2015 challenging the said order and this Court again allowed the writ petition on 03.04.2015 directing the Licensing Authority to take a decision afresh. The petitioner submitted the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 03.04.2015 through representation dated 16.05.2015 before the District Magistrate, Allahabad, which has been rejected now by the impugned order dated 03.06.2015 on the grounds as aforesaid. 7. This Court while hearing the matter had initially passed a detailed order directing the Principal Secretary, (Home) to file personal affidavit bringing on record the details with regard to licences issued by various District Magistrates all over State of U.P., in spite of order passed by this Court dated 07.10.2013 in Writ Petition No. 3268 (M.B.) of 2012. 8. A detailed affidavit has been filed by the Principal Secretary, (Home), in which he has brought on record the facts that after 07.10.2013 and in between 31.05.2017, 20797 such Fire Arms Licence were issued. 18001 licences were issued on ground of Heirloom Policy and 187 licences were issued for Sportsman Category and 1665 licences were issued for victims of crimes. These three categories, it has been emphasised by the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary(Home) were allowed as exceptions of Arms Licences by the Court itself through its various orders in Writ Petition No. 3268 (MB) of 2012. However, it has come on record that 944 licences were issued by Licensing Authorities all over the State of U.P., which were not covered under the exceptions carved out by this Court in its various orders during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 3268 (MB) of 2012 (Jitendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and others). 9. However, it has come on record that 944 licences were issued by Licensing Authorities all over the State of U.P., which were not covered under the exceptions carved out by this Court in its various orders during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 3268 (MB) of 2012 (Jitendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and others). 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised the issuance of 944 licences without any reason by various Licensing Authorities of different districts in the State of U.P. and has argued that his matter has been deliberately rejected only out of malice. 10. From a perusal of page Nos.44 to 46 of personal affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary, (Home), it has come to light that these 944 licences were granted in 43 districts and Allahabad is not one of 43 districts, where Fire Arm Licences were granted against the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3268 (MB) of 2012, therefore this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner only stated to be rejected. 11. However, from a perusal of the impugned order dated 03.06.2015, it is evident that the directions in the case of Chandra Raj Tripathi vs. State of UP in Writ Petition No. 65647 of 2013 issued by this Court on 10.12.2013, on the basis of which the petitioner’s Writ Petition No. 18244 of 2015 (Dhiraj Singh vs. State of U.P.) was allowed by this Court on 03.04.2015, have been ignored by the District Magistrate on the ground that the directions issued on 10.12.2013 in the case of Chandra Raj Tripathi vs. State of U.P. had been stayed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 163 of 2014 an interim order dated 14.02.2014 is continuing and Special Appeal (Defective) No. 163 of 2014 is still pending before this Court. 12. From a perusal of the interim order dated 14.02.2014 in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 163 of 2014, it has come to light that only part of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Chandra Raj Tripathi directing the Government to amend its Government Order dated 08.11.2013 have been stayed by this Court. 12. From a perusal of the interim order dated 14.02.2014 in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 163 of 2014, it has come to light that only part of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Chandra Raj Tripathi directing the Government to amend its Government Order dated 08.11.2013 have been stayed by this Court. The relevant extract of the interim order granted by this Court on 14.02.2014 in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 163 of 2014 has been quoted herein-below: “In the meantime, the direction of the learned Single Judge insofar as it directs for correcting the Government Order dated 08.11.2013 within two weeks shall remain stayed” 13. It is evident that the District Magistrate rejected the case of the petitioner without application of mind on 03.06.2015, and the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone that it was passed in contemptuous disregard of the order passed by this Court allowing Writ Petition No. 18244 of 2015 by the judgment and order dated 03.04.2015. 14. It has also come on record in the personal affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary,(Home) that Writ Petition No. 3268 (MB) of 2012 has been finally disposed of by this Court along with a bunch of several writ petitions on 28.11.2017 with the following directions: “It is open to the petitioners to make fresh applications in the prescribed form under the Rules, 2016. The concerned authority shall deal with their applications, as and when made, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the receipt of their applications, in accordance with the Rules, 2016. In view thereof, the orders, whereby the petitioners' applications came to be rejected, shall render ineffective and the concerned authority shall consider their fresh applications uninfluenced by those orders. If the State Government make any attempt to implement their orders issued from time to time, it is open to the aggrieved persons to take appropriate remedy against such action. These petitions are accordingly disposed of.” 15. The order dated 03.06.2015 is set aside. 16. This writ petition is partly allowed with a similar direction as given by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 28.11.2017. These petitions are accordingly disposed of.” 15. The order dated 03.06.2015 is set aside. 16. This writ petition is partly allowed with a similar direction as given by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 28.11.2017. The petitioner shall make a fresh application to the District Magistrate, Allahabad for grant of Fire Arms Licence, which shall be processed with a period of twelve weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and order be passed thereon in accordance with law.