Dinesh Kumar Agrawal vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5566 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            W.P.(C) No.11494 of 2023


        Dinesh Kumar Agrawal                   ....             Petitioner

                                   Mr. Pabitra Kumar Nayak, Advocate
                                   -versus-

        State of Odisha and others             ....      Opposite Parties

                                          Ms. Suman Pattanayak, AGA



                  CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                   ORDER

Order                             09.05.2023
No.
  2.    1.      Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner

and submits, by impugned order dated 27th March, 2023 his client's

arms licence has been revoked. It was done without notice. He seeks

interference.

2. He relies on judgment dated 3rd September, 2021 of the

Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.5121 of 2021 (ACST v.

Commercial Steel Limited), paragraph-11 reproduced below.

"11. The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in

// 2 //

exceptional circumstances where there is:

       (i)     a breach of fundamental rights;
       (ii)    a violation of the principles of natural justice;
       (iii)   an excess of jurisdiction; or
       (iv)    a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated
       legislation."

3. Ms. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government

Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, counter has been

filed. She draws attention to impugned order and submits, instruction

to petitioner was to apply for grant of licence afresh, if so desired, for

further action. She submits, this illumination is indication of reason in

impugned order. The reasons are, the revoked licence was granted by

the Additional District Magistrate. The office could not have so

granted as it is the District Magistrate to grant the licence. Secondly,

there was no police report. Mr. Nayak in reply submits, the Additional

District Magistrate performs similar function as does the District

Magistrate. Furthermore, it cannot be said that police report is

mandatory for purpose of issuance of the licence. However, in event

his client is to apply afresh, there be direction for the application to be

dealt with expeditiously.

4. Court accepts contention of petitioner that he was in the dark,

regarding why the licence was revoked. He being outside of the

administration is not expected to know on proper authority to have

// 3 //

granted the licence. He knew that he had applied for and obtained the

licence, cancelled without reason. Having said that, the administration

also does not appear to have acted against petitioner. It has instructed

him to apply afresh. Petitioner now knows that he must find out the

proper authority, to whom he must apply. On query from Court Ms.

Pattanayak submits, the proper authority is the District Magistrate.

5. Petitioner will apply for issuance of arms licence to opposite

party no.2. Said opposite party is directed to consider and deal with the

application within three weeks of it being made and inform petitioner

result thereof.

6. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks SISIR Digitally signed by

KUMAR SISIR KUMAR SETHI Date: 2023.05.09 18:08:10 +05'30' SETHI