Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10977 of 2017 Petitioner :- Gauri Shankar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Chandra Mishra,Usha Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State- respondents.
Vide order dated 9.3.2017, time was granted to learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit, but till date, no counter affidavit has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders dated 05.10.2009, 28.10.2009 and 04.06.2016 have been passed by respondent nos. 3 & 2 only on the ground of apprehension of misuse of arms license coupled with the fact that one NCR No. 63 of 2009, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. has been lodged against sons of petitioner. He next submitted that it is undisputed that arms license of the petitioner has never been used in any crime and further, NCR has been lodged against sons of petitioner and not against the petitioner. Even if in case of pendency of solitary criminal case and on the basis of apprehension, arms license cannot be a ground for cancelled in light of different pronouncement made by Apex Court as well as judgements of this Court in the matter of Ashok Rao Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2009 (8) ADJ 244, Satyendra Bahadure Singh @ Guddu Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported as 2016 0 Supreme (All) 358, Hiramani Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported as 2010 LawSuit (All) 3030 decided on 15.12.2020, Rajendra Singh Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and others reported as 2011 LawSuit (All) 2876 decided on 10.03.2011 and Mulayam Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported as 2012 LawSuit (All) 1651 decided on 14.05.2012. He next submitted that in the present case, no FIR has been lodged against the petitioner, therefore, impugned orders dated 05.10.2009, 28.10.2009 and 04.06.2016 passed by respondent nos. 3 & 2 respectively are bad and liable to the set aside.
Learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed, but could not dispute the facts as well as legal submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that the impugned orders have been passed only on the ground of apprehension. The fact is also not disputed that no criminal proceeding has ever been initiated against the petitioner and the NCR has been lodged against the sons of petitioner. Therefore, impugned orders dated 05.10.2009, 28.10.2009 and 04.06.2016 passed by respondent nos. 3 & 2 are not sustainable in the eye of law and hereby quashed. Respondent no. 3 is directed to restore arms license in favour of petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of computer generated copy of this order after verifying the same from official website of Allahabad High Court. In case term of arms license has been expired, he shall also renew the same in accordance with law within the same period.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.10.2021 Arvind