# Arvind Rai v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 424
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1351 of 2021
- **Bench:** Kunal Ravi Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arvind-rai-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52851
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C S.C.

Issue for consideration
The two legal issue arises whether the initial
cancellation of the petitioner's gun liscence by
thhe District Magistrate was in accordance with
law. whether the subsequent event of the
petitioner's acquittal in the criminal cases used
as
grounds
for
revocation
rendered
the
impugned orders vitiated.

Headnotes
Civil matter-Constitution of India, 1950Article 226-The Arms Act,1959- section
3/25-The
cancellation
was
not
in
accordance with law because it was
based merely on the lodging of FIRs
without
a
specific
finding
of
rule
violations-The petitioners subsequent
acquittal
fundamentally
vitiated
the
grounds for cancellation-A gun license is
a privilege and not a right, its revocation
requires a proven misuse of the firearm
or a threat to public safety-Writ petition
allowed.(E-6)

Held
The court held that orders passed ex-parte or
those dismissing recall applications on technical
grounds may be set aside if material facts like
acquittal are later established. The authorities
are directed to consider the restoration of the
arms license within two months, subject to
standard police verification. (Para 8 to 15)

Case law Cited:
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor &
General Traders ; AIR 1975 SCC 1409, Om
Prakash Gupta Vs. Ranbir B. Goyal ; AIR 2002
SC 665 ; J. Ganapatha and others Vs. N.
Selvarajalou Chetty Trust and ors ; 2025 (2)
CCC 59] Writ C no. 62813 of 2017 ; Jai Prakash
@ Raju Vs. State of U.P. and others; Writ C
No.19871 of 2021 ; Suresh Singh Yadav Vs.
State of U.P. and others], Habib Vs. State of
U.P. ; 2002 ACC 783]
Kailash Nath and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others; AIR 1985 ALL 291]

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950, The Arms Act,1959

List of keywords
 Arms
license
cancellation,
public
safety,
acquittal, Ex-parte order, subsequent event,
SBBL Gun.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: Writ C No. 1351 of 2021
From the judgment and order dated 20.11.2025
of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.
Arvind Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Appearance for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Mahendra Rai, Sharad Kumar Pandey

Adv. for the Respondents:
C S.C.

## Text

424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 11 ILRA 424
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 1351 of 2021

Arvind Rai ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mahendra Rai, Sharad Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S.C.

Issue for consideration
The two legal issue arises whether the initial
cancellation of the petitioner's gun liscence by
thhe District Magistrate was in accordance with
law. whether the subsequent event of the
petitioner's acquittal in the criminal cases used
as
grounds
for
revocation
rendered
the
impugned orders vitiated.

Headnotes
Civil matter-Constitution of India, 1950Article 226-The Arms Act,1959- section
3/25-The
cancellation
was
not
in
accordance with law because it was
based merely on the lodging of FIRs
without
a
specific
finding
of
rule
violations-The petitioners subsequent
acquittal
fundamentally
vitiated
the
grounds for cancellation-A gun license is
a privilege and not a right, its revocation
requires a proven misuse of the firearm
or a threat to public safety-Writ petition
allowed.(E-6)

Held
The court held that orders passed ex-parte or
those dismissing recall applications on technical
grounds may be set aside if material facts like
acquittal are later established. The authorities
are directed to consider the restoration of the
arms license within two months, subject to
standard police verification. (Para 8 to 15)

Case law Cited:
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor &
General Traders ; AIR 1975 SCC 1409, Om
Prakash Gupta Vs. Ranbir B. Goyal ; AIR 2002
SC 665 ; J. Ganapatha and others Vs. N.
Selvarajalou Chetty Trust and ors ; 2025 (2)
CCC 59] Writ C no. 62813 of 2017 ; Jai Prakash
@ Raju Vs. State of U.P. and others; Writ C
No.19871 of 2021 ; Suresh Singh Yadav Vs.
State of U.P. and others], Habib Vs. State of
U.P. ; 2002 ACC 783]
Kailash Nath and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others; AIR 1985 ALL 291]

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950, The Arms Act,1959

List of keywords
 Arms
license
cancellation,
public
safety,
acquittal, Ex-parte order, subsequent event,
SBBL Gun.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: Writ C No. 1351 of 2021
From the judgment and order dated 20.11.2025
of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.
Arvind Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Appearance for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Mahendra Rai, Sharad Kumar Pandey

Adv. for the Respondents:
C S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kunal Ravi Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Standing Counsel for the State
respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed
challenging
the
order
dated
21.12.2012
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate, Azamgarh and order dated
20.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner,
11 All. Arvind Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
425
Azamgarh Mandal, Azamgarh as well as
order dated 09.12.2020 passed in recall
application filed by the petitioner.

3.
By
means
of
order
dated
21.12.2012,
the
District
Magistrate,
Azamgarh had cancelled the SBBL Gun
License No.372/04 on the basis of two
criminal
cases
pending
against
the
petitioner as Case Crime No.664 of 2010
under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323,
504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) of SC/ST
Act and Case Crime No.808 of 2010 under
section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The said
order passed by the concerned District
Magistrate has been allowed ex-parte
against the petitioner and the appeal has
been rejected. The ex-parte rejection of the
appeal was sought to be recalled by means
of recall application which has also been
dismissed on 09.12.2020. Consequently, all
the three orders are challenged herein.

FACTS :-

4. The brief facts of the case are that
the petitioner was granted gun license for
SBBL Gun No. BE 949/2001 which was
registered as License No.372/04. On the
report of S.H.O., Gambhirpur, DistrictAzamgarh dated 15.10.2010 and the
subsequent
recommendation
by
the
Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh, case
was instituted against the petitioner on the
ground that the petitioner uses his licensed
weapon to threaten the persons belonging
to Reserve Categories and the petitioner
has misused his weapon which resulted in a
criminal case being filed against him under
the relevant Acts. Therefore, it cannot be
doubted that keeping the license in
possession of the petitioner would lead to
public safety issues. The petitioner filed his
reply to the initial notice and submitted that
the case against the petitioner is a result of
enmity with certain residents of the village.
The petitioner never used his weapon in
contravention of any conditions mentioned
in the Arms License or relevant Act and
Rules.
Except
the
alleged
offences
mentioned above, no criminal case is
pending against the petitioner and the
petitioner is not a person of criminal
tendency. The said reply of the petitioner
was not found satisfactory and on the basis
of the Case Crime No.664 of 2010 and
Case Crime No.808 of 2010, arms license
of the petitioner was cancelled in public
safety. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an
appeal
before
the
Commissioner,
Azamgarh Mandal, Azamgarh who by
means of ex-parte order dated 20.06.2018,
upheld the order passed by the concerned
District Magistrate by which license of the
petitioner was cancelled. Since, the said
order was ex-parte order, therefore, the
petitioner filed a recall application which
was dismissed by means of order dated
09.12.2020 on the ground that there is no
provision of recalling any appellate order.
The recall application was held to be not
maintainable.

SUBMISSIONS :-

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the arms license of the petitioner
was cancelled on a singular issue i.e.
lodging of an FIR against him in two case
crime numbers. He further submits that
regarding
two
case
crime
numbers,
decision has now been taken by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2,
Azamgarh in which the petitioner has been
acquitted from any of the alleged offences.
He further submits that since the petitioner
has been acquitted, therefore, the license of
the petitioner is liable to be restored and on
this ground, the impugned orders are liable
to be set-aside.
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6.
Per
contra,
learned
Standing
Counsel for the State respondents contends
that even though the petitioner may have
been acquitted in the said case crime
number but the issue involved is of public
safety and the Sessions Court has not
examined the correct aspects with regard to
other offences and as such, the impugned
orders are liable to be upheld and need no
interference by this Court.

ISSUES :-

7.
Heard
rival
submissions
and
perused the records. The following issues
are framed for adjudication of the present
dispute :-

(A) Whether the cancellation of
the gun license of the petitioner was in
accordance with law ?

(B) Whether the subsequent event
of acquittal of the petitioner would render
the impugned orders vitiated ?

ANALYSIS :-

8. A perusal of the impugned order
dated 21.12.2012 shows that the arms
license of the licensee has been cancelled
on the ground of pending criminal
proceedings against him as Case Crime
No.664 of 2010 under sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section
3(1) of SC/ST Act and Case Crime No.808
of 2010 under section 3/25 of the Arms
Act.
Furthermore,
in
the
report
of
concerned S.H.O., it is stated that the
licensee and his family members have
threatened several villagers, due to which
peace and tranquility of the area has been
disturbed and it cannot be denied that there
is apprehension of further breach of peace.
The impugned order passed by the District
Magistrate is based upon the fact that there
is breach of peace and danger to public
safety. The District Magistrate, merely on
the basis of lodging the case crime and a
report of concerned S.H.O., has passed the
order of cancellation.

9. The fact of acquittal of the
petitioner in the said case crime numbers
could not be placed before the concerned
District Magistrate as the impugned order
is before the date of acquittal of the
petitioner. Even though, an appeal under
the Arms Act, 1959 was filed on
03.11.2023, however the appeal was
decided ex-parte against the petitioner as
the counsel for the appellant failed to
appear before the court. In the recall
application filed by the petitioner, it is
stated that the counsel, who was engaged
for arguing the appeal, died on 09.08.2018
and as such, the appeal could not be
pressed and the recall application was also
dismissed as not maintainable. Such a
subsequent event has a material bearing on
the case and the same can be looked into by
this Court while examining the correctness
of the impugned orders especially when
there is no averment by the State
respondents that the said order of acquittal
was challenged before any higher forum.

10. Furthermore, with regard to public
firing, the impugned order is silent with
regard to violation of any condition.
Without giving a finding with regard to
which provision of Act/Rules was violated
by the petitioner, the alleged event of
public firing cannot be looked into and as
such, the impugned orders are vitiated on
this ground also.

11. No doubt, the grant of license is
not a right but only a privilege [vide
Kailash Nath and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others ; AIR 1985 ALL 291] but
11 All. Arvind Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
427
the revocation of the privilege would
require misuse of the license/firearm. In the
present case, the alleged act of misuse has
been set at naught by the Sessions Court
and as such, there is no violation of the
license/firearm. It is a well settled law that
mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be
a ground for cancellation of the Arms
license. [Vide (i) Writ C no. 62813 of
2017 ; Jai Prakash @ Raju Vs. State of
U.P. and others; (ii) Writ C No.19871 of
2021 ; Suresh Singh Yadav Vs. State of
U.P. and others]. Furthermore, acquittal
from a criminal case would also render the
impugned orders vitiated. [Vide Habib Vs.
State of U.P. ; 2002 ACC 783]

12. Looking into the facts and
circumstances of the case and keeping in
mind the subsequent event of acquittal of
the petitioner in Case Crime No.664 of
2010 and Case Crime No.808 of 2010, on
the basis of which the impugned orders are
being passed, it is clear that the impugned
orders cannot stand any legal scrutiny.
Even though in the appeal, order of the
Sessions Court could not be placed as the
counsel appearing for the petitioner had
died during the pendency of the appeal but
the same can be considered by this court
while seeing the validity of the impugned
orders as it is an event subsequent to the
passing of the order of District Magistrate
and has material bearing at the issue at
hand. In case, any subsequent event has
happened which may shorten litigation and
enable the Courts to do complete justice
then the same must be looked into for
moulding the relief. [Vide (i) Pasupuleti
Venkateswarlu
Vs.
The
Motor
&
General Traders ; AIR 1975 SCC 1409,
(ii) Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Ranbir B.
Goyal ; AIR 2002 SC 665 ; (iii) J.
Ganapatha
and
others
Vs.
N.
Selvarajalou Chetty Trust and ors ; 2025
(2) CCC 59]. Since, there is a acquittal of
the petitioner in the aforesaid case crime
no., therefore, order dated 21.12.2012
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Azamgarh and order dated 20.06.2018
passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh
Mandal, Azamgarh as well as order dated
09.12.2020 passed in recall application do
not pass judicial scrutiny and as such are
liable to be set-aside.

REPLY TO ISSUES :-

13. In the light of above discussions
with regard to issue (A), in the opinion of
this Court, cancellation of the gun license
was not in accordance with law and with
regard to issue (B), the subsequent event of
acquittal of the petitioner would render the
impugned orders as vitiated.

RELIEF :-

14. In the light of above :-

(i) order dated 21.12.2012 passed
by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh,
order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the
Commissioner,
Azamgarh
Mandal,
Azamgarh and order dated 09.12.2020
passed in recall application are hereby setaside ;

(ii) A direction is issued to the
concerned Authorities to consider the
restoration of the arms license of the
petitioner and pass appropriate order
keeping in mind the above findings in
accordance with law after obtaining
necessary police verification. The said
order shall be passed within a period of
two months from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.

15. With the abovesaid directions, the
instant writ petition stands allowed.
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 428
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 7293 of 2025

Mohammad Aqib ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Adnan Aamir, Chhaya Gupta, Sujeet Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A S.G.I., Ashish Kumar Singh, C.S.C.,
Komal Mehrotra, Mithilesh Ch. Tripathi,
Vaibhav Tripathi

Issue for consideration
The petitioner, owner of National Filling Station,
challenged the allotment of a new petrol pump
to respondent no, 8 (HPCL). The petitioner
claimed that the new outlet violated the
government guidelines and would drastically
reduce his sales

Headnotes
A. Civil matter-Constitution of India,1950-Article
226-The court held that a rival in trade does
not have the locus standi to challenge the
establishment of a competing business solely on
the grounds of potential financial loss-The
principle of Damnum sine Injuria (damage
without legal injury) does not constitute a
violation of legal rights as petitioner suffered no
legal injury-Citing supereme court precedents
like Jasbhai Motibhai Desai and Mitilesh Garg,
the court emphasized that business competition
is governed by demand and supply and serves
the public interest-Writ petition dismissed.(E-6)
Held
The court ruled that the writ petition is not
maintainable because the petitioner was not
an "aggrieved person" in the legal sense.
The court held that the law does not
recognize a remedy for pecuniary harm
resulting from lawful competition, as no
fundamental or statutory right was infringed.
(Para 6 to 12)

Case law Cited
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar
and others [(1976) 1 SCC 671] Mithilesh
Garg vs. Union of India is AIR 1992 SC
443, Writ C No.-14091 of 2020 (Rinki
Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) Writ
C No.- 17754 of 2020 (Amir Kumar Mishra
Vs. Union of India and 3 others) Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 39125 of 2007 (M/s.
Kisan Seva Kendra Vs. State of U.P. & ors.)
and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15351 of
2011 (Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India and
others)

List of Acts.
Constitution of India,1950
List of Keywords
Locus standi, Damnum Sine Injuria, Person
Aggrieved, Rival in trade, business competition,
retail outlet, Petrol Pump, Maintainability.

Case Arising from
CIVIL JURISDICTION: Writ C No. 7293 of 2025
From the judgment and order dated 14.11.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Mohammad Aqib Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Appearances for parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Adnan Aamir, Chhaya Gupta, Sujeet Kumar

Advs. for the Respondents:
A S.G.I., Ashish Kumar Singh, C.S.C., Komal
Mehrotra,
Mithilesh
Ch.
Tripathi,
Vaibhav
Tripathi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhanshu
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sujit Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned standing
counsel for respondent nos.2, 3, 6 and 7,
Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for
the respondent no.1 and Sri Komal