Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6142 of 2017 Petitioner :- Ram Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Pati Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.
Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 26.5.2016 and 2.1.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 respectively.
At the very outset, drawing attention to judgement and order of this Court dated 14.3.2018 passed in Writ-C No. 6143 of 2017 (Ram Pal Singh vs. State of UP) learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case also same case crime no. 518 of 2015 is involved and under identical circumstances the petition was allowed by this Court.
The said order is quoted as under:
"Heard Sri Yogendra Pati Tripathi for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The writ petition has been filed against the order of District Magistrate dated 26.5.2016 cancelling the arms licence of the petitioner and the order of Commissioner dated 1.2.2017 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.
It has been stated that the petitioner was granted firearms licence on which the petitioner had purchased one DBBL gun and one revolver. On the report of Additional Superintendent of Police dated 24.12.2015 the proceeding for cancellation of arms licence has been registered against the petitioner. In the report it has been stated that F.I.R. of Case Crime No.611 of 2015 under Sections 307/ 336/ 504/506/427/477, I.P.C. and FIR of Case Crime No.518 of 2015 under Sections 147/148/336/504/427/34/341/188, IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act have been registered The petitioner has, therefore, misused the arms and his licence is liable to be cancelled.
On the notice being issued to the petitioner, he submitted his reply stating that F.I.R. of Case Crime No.518 of 2015 was registered due to political rivalry inasmuch as the petitioner was contesting election of Pradhan in the year 2015, therefore, police in collusion with other rival parties in the election registered F.I.R. of Case Crime No.518 of 2015 without his involvement in the case. Similarly, the name of the petitioner in other case i.e. Case Crime No.611 of 2015 has been falsely mentioned. The police after investigation in Case Crime No.611 of 2015 has submitted final report on 9.6.2016 in which involvement of the petitioner in the incident was not proved. However, District Magistrate by order dated 26.5.2016 found that on 28.11.2015 the petitioner along with other persons was making protest on the road and created road jam and while the police tried to remove the public from road then the petitioner along with his co-protestors had attacked the police with lathi, danda, stones and sariya. Therefore, arms licence granted in favour of the petitioner is not in public interest On this finding he cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner by order dated 26.5.2016. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner by order dated 2.1.2017. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record.
So far as Case Crime No.518 of 2015 is concerned the allegation made in the F.I.R. that petitioner along with other persons was making protest due to which road jam has been created on the spot. There is no allegation that arms of the petitioner has been used in this incident rather it is clear allegation that the persons who were making protest attacked the police with lathi, danda, etc. but no injury to any person was found on the spot. Similarly, in F.I.R. of Case Crime 611 of 2015, the police itself found that involvement of the petitioner in this incident was false. Accordingly, final report dated 9.6.2016 was submitted. Thus, cancellation of arms licence on the basis of aforesaid cases was illegal.
In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of District Magistrate dated 26.5.2016 and Commissioner dated 2.1.2017 are set aside. The District Magistrate is directed to restore the arms licence as well as arms of the petitioner to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him."
Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the same.
In the present case also, the orders impugned herein are also of the same date i.e. impugned orders dated 26.5.2016 and 2.1.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 respectively.
Consequently, the present petition is also allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgement dated 14.3.2018 passed in Writ-C No. 6143 of 2017 (Ram Pal Singh vs. State of UP) as quoted above. The impugned orders dated 26.5.2016 and 2.1.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 respectively are set aside.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Abhishek