# Anwar Ali v. Prescribed Authority/S.D.O., Chunar, Mirzapur and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 237
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-01-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 27581 of 1999
- **Bench:** M.Katju, R.Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anwar-ali-v-prescribed-authority-s-d-o-chunar-mirzapur-and-others-39805
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Arms Act-section 17 and 18- mere
involvement in criminal case cannot in
any way effect the public security or
public interest and the order canceling or
revoking the license of fire has been set
aside. (Held in para 3)
Cases relied on - 1978 A.W.C. 122
1972 A.L.J. 573

The present impugned orders also suffer
from the same infirmity as was pointed
out by the Division Bench in the above
mentioned cases. I am in full agreement
with the view taken by the Division
Bench that these orders cannot be
sustained and deserve to be quashed and
are hereby quashed.

## Text

1All] Anwar Ali V. Prescribed Authority/S.D.O., Chunar, Mirzapur and others
237
committed apparent error in directing for
the recounting of votes

6. In view of the foregoing
discussions, the judgement and order
dated 21.01.2002 passed by the learned
single Judge is hereby set aside and the
order dated 26.12.2001 passed by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate is hereby quashed.
The writ petition as well as the Special
Appeal are allowed. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.2.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 27581 of 1999

Moti Lal Gupta

...Petitioner
Versus
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.S. Tripathi
Sri S.K. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
227-
Practice
and
Procedure
Scope
for
interference-
Judgement
passed
by
Tribunal under challenge- on ground out
of 10 points only three points have been
discussed- it shall be presumed that each
and every points have been discussed- if
so feel that any point not dealtwith- may
approach before the same Tribunal for
reconsideration.

Held - Para 4

If learned counsel for the petitioner
wants to urge that some other points
were pressed before the Court/Tribunal
but have not been dealt with, he should
approach the same court or tribunal and
if he can satisfy it that such points were
in fact pressed the Court Tribunal can
reconsider its order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the
impugned
order
of
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 15.4.1999
(Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

3. We have carefully perused the
impugned order and find no illegality in
the same. The Tribunal has observed that
there was break in the petitioner's service,
and since he did not complete ten years
service, therefore, he is not entitled for
pension.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
had urged that certain points were urged
before the tribunal, which have not been
considered by the Tribunal. It is well
settled that if certain points are not
mentioned in the judgement of the court
or tribunal, it will be deemed that they
were never pressed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner. The presumption in law
is that the Court or Tribunal deals with all
the points which are pressed. It often
happens that 10 points are taken in a
petition but only 3 points are pressed.
Naturally the Court/Tribunal will deal
with only these 3 points. If learned
counsel for the petitioner wants to urge
that some points were pressed before the
Court/Tribunal but have not been dealt
with then he should approach the same
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
238
court or tribunal, and if he can satisfy it
that such points were in fact pressed the
Court/Tribunal can reconsider its order.

5. We, therefore, give liberty to the
petitioner to approach the Tribunal in this
connection, and if he does so the Tribunal
will decide the application expeditiously
in the light of the observations made
above.

6. The writ petition is disposed off
accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.2.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54236 of 1999

Habib

...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh through District
Magistrate, Rampur and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dharmendra Singhal
Sri K.M. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Arms Act-section 17 and 18- mere
involvement in criminal case cannot in
any way effect the public security or
public interest and the order canceling or
revoking the license of fire has been set
aside. (Held in para 3)
Cases relied on - 1978 A.W.C. 122
1972 A.L.J. 573

The present impugned orders also suffer
from the same infirmity as was pointed
out by the Division Bench in the above
mentioned cases. I am in full agreement
with the view taken by the Division
Bench that these orders cannot be
sustained and deserve to be quashed and
are hereby quashed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar. J.)

1. By means of the present writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, petitioner has
challenged the orders dated 31.5.1999
passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur
and the order dated 7.9.1999 passed by
the Commissioner, Moradabad Division,
Moradabad Annexure-1 and 3 to the writ
petition,
respectively,
under
the
provisions of Section 17 and 18 of the
Arms Act, cancelling the licence of his
fire-arm.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel representing the respondents.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
contends that the petitioner has been
served with a show cause notice under
Section 17 of the Arms Act asking him to
show cause as to why his fire arms licence
may not be cancelled and in reply thereto
he filed his objection stating therein that
he was never involved in criminal case
and he has not misused his gun as is
alleged in the show cause notice. The
further contention of the petitioner's
counsel is that two cases under Crime
Nos. 174 of 1993 and 178 of 1998 at
police
station
Bilashpur
and
Milak
Khanam, respectively, District Rampur
have been registered against six persons
of the locality, including the petitioner
and in which he has been falsely
implicated by the police due to enmity. It
is on the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., the
petitioner has been served with the
aforesaid show cause notice. A perusal of
the order of revocation of the licence