Allahabad High Court
Hriday Kumar Singh @ Rajole Singh vs State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Deptt.Of ... on 7 April, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33544 of 2018
Petitioner :- Hriday Kumar Singh @ Rajole Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy. Deptt.Of Home And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dilip Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.03.2007 whereby the arms license of the petitioner has been cancelled as well as the appellate order dated 21.12.2015 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was having an arms license no.68/1990. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 17.06.2004 (Annexure - 4) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his license may not be cancelled. The petitioner preferred an objection against the said and denied the charges levelled. However, an order cancelling the license being order dated 13.03.2007 came to be passed mainly on the ground of pendency of two criminal cases being Criminal Case No.490 of 2003 and Criminal Case No.61 of 2004.
It is argued that on the same grounds, proceedings were initiated against the co-accused against whom also the two criminal cases were pending and in the said proceedings, the arms license of the co-accused Krishna Kumar Mali was cancelled. Shri Krishna Kumar Mali approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7744 (MS) of 2011, which was allowed by this Court vide its judgment dated 30.03.2017 mainly on the ground that the action of cancellation of the license on the ground of pendency of criminal cases would not satisfy the requirements as laid down under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act.
In the light of the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that on the same grounds and reasoning, the present petition is also liable to be allowed.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand defends the orders by arguing that the petitioner was involved in two criminal cases and thus, no fault can be found with the cancellation order.
Considering the fact that the allegations levelled against the petitioner, which are the foundation of passing a cancellation order, are similar to the one levelled against Krishna Kumar Mali, the co-accused in both the said offences, and the fact that the petition filed by him was allowed, agreeing with the findings recorded in the said judgment that merely because criminal cases are pending, the same would not satisfy the tests as are required for invoking the powers under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, I find that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition deserves to be allowed on the same ground and reasoning as contained in the judgment date 30.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.7744 (MS) of 2011.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Order dated 12.03.2007 passed in Case No.11 of 2003 (Annexure - 1) and order dated 21.12.2015 passed in Appeal No.26/2006-07 (Annexure - 2) are set aside.
Order Date :- 7.4.2022
nishant
