Allahabad High Court
Arjun Yadav vs State Of U.P.Thru. Addl.Chief ... on 13 July, 2021
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 11462 of 2021
Petitioner :- Arjun Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Addl.Chief Secy Home & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Chandra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned C.S.C.-III for the State Respondent.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 17.05.2021 issued by the District Magistrate Barabanki the respondent no.3, which is in fact a suspension order combined with the show cause notice issued during the pendency of enquiry being conducted by the District Magistrate with regard to Section 17 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the petitioner has statutory remedy of filing an Appeal under Section 18(1) of the Act against such an order. He has also pointed out that the petitioner has nowhere stated in the writ petition that he has submitted any reply to such show cause notice, before the licensing authority as was required in the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon several judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Benches and also the judgement rendered in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Chhanga Prasad Sahu vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors; 1984 AWC 145 and judgment rendered in Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others; 1996 ALJ 301 (5 Judges) to say that the Court had reiterated the legal position as settled by the Three Judges Bench in Chhanga Prasad Sahu vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors, with regard to power of suspension of fire arm license during the pendency of the enquiry regarding revocation of license.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the availability of statutory remedy of Appeal should not come in the way of this Court interfering in the order impugned. He has referred several judgments of Coordinate Benches where similar suspension orders have been interfered with. One such judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been rendered in the case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Raebareli and others, reported in 2013 (31) LCD 1313.
6. This Court has carefully perused the judgment rendered in Rakesh Kumar (Supra) and finds that the question of availability of statutory remedy has not been considered by the Coordinate Bench.
7. In view of the law settled by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64, that where rights are created under the Statute and remedy for violation of such rights is also provided in the Statute, a writ petition should not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner should file an Appeal if he is aggrieved by the suspension order. With regard to the petitioner's argument that the order on the face of it is bad as there is no application of mind by the District Magistrate while passing the suspension order looking into the pre-requisite conditions mentioned in sub-clause 3 of Section 17 of the Act, this Court does not wish to express any opinion at this stage as it would prejudice the case of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority.
8. The petitioner's argument regarding alternative remedy being no bar to entertain a writ petition where the order is without jurisdiction or has been passed without following the principles of natural justice does not appeal to this Court because there is a huge difference between "statutory remedy" and "alternative remedy". In case of alternative remedy, no doubt this Court has discretion either to entertain the petition or to relegate the litigant to the appropriate forum. In cases where statutory remedy is available, the only course open would be to direct the litigant to first approach the Forum/ Tribunal created by the Statute. This has also been reiterated in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCC 261.
9. The petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the suspension of his arms license during the pendency of the enquiry, may approach the Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Act.
10. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Order Date :- 13.7.2021
Rahul
