Allahabad High Court
Aayub Ali vs State Of U.P Thru Secy Home Lko And ... on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16750 of 2017
Petitioner :- Aayub Ali
Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Secy Home Lko And Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.07.2006 whereby the arms license of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the appellate order dated 07.10.2015 whereby the appeal preferred was dismissed.
The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was granted an arms license, however, subsequently on the basis of a police report indicating the implication of the petitioner in various cases, an order came to be passed cancelling the arms license. The appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed.
The Standing Counsel in his counter affidavit (CA-2) has given a details of eleven cases in which the petitioner was implicated in only one case being case crime no.87 of 2005, the petitioner was convicted by the trial court.
The counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been subsequently acquitted in the said case by the High Court vide judgment dated 28.08.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.599 of 2008. He further argues that the proceedings for cancellation of the arms license were initiated against the petitioner as well as one Mukhtar Ahmad, however, on the basis of the judgment of the High Court, the appeal preferred by Mukhtar Ahmad was allowed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 07.04.2014 and on the basis of the said order, the said Mukhtar Ahmad has been reissued the license. He further argues that there is nothing on record to come to a conclusion that there existed any condition of breach of public peace or safety as required under section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act.
I have perused the order passed by the Commissioner in appeal which takes notice of the fact that in the case crime no.87 of 2005, the petitioner was acquitted, however, he records that although the petitioner has been acquitted in all the cases, the allegations and the first information report leveled against the petitioner were grave in nature and thus he justified the order of cancellation of the arms license as passed by the District Magistrate.
Record bears that arising of the similar cases, one of the appeal has already been allowed in the case of Mukhtar Ahmad by the Commissioner, whereas in the present case on the same fact, the appeal has been dismissed.
Considering the fact that no case is pending against the petitioner and has been acquitted in all the cases and there is nothing on record to demonstrate any of the conditions exists so as to exercise the power under section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act and that the petitioner was entitled to be given the same treatment as given to the similarly placed licensee Mukhtar Ahmad, the orders impugned cannot be sustained and are set aside.
The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 4.5.2022
VNP/-
