# Ashok Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 316
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-25
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3124 of 2019
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-verma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46529
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Fire Arm license - Cancellation -
Order passed without opportunity of hearing -
Review
against
cancellation
order
-
Maintainability of review - Seri Infrastructure's
case followed - Every Tribunal has the power
of review if there is a procedural defect - Held,
when the petitioner was not heard definitely a
Review was maintainable. (Para 6)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Stamp Act. Accordingly, Stamp Authorities
are directed to consider levy of the Stamp Fee in
the light of the aforesaid provision. Impugned
orders under challenge passed by the respondent
nos. 1 and 2 dated 17.12.2020 and 19.04.2020,
respectively , are illegal, erroneous and against
the very intention as recited in the power of
attorney dated 15/12/1994. As such, present writ
petition is succeeded and allowed.

30. It is made clear that any amount, in
case, deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of
the impugned orders passed by the authorities
concerned shall be reimbursed to the petitioner
with the simple interest as applicable presently.
----------
(2021)11ILR A316
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ C No. 3124 of 2019

Ashok Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manish Singh, Sushma Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Fire Arm license - Cancellation -
Order passed without opportunity of hearing -
Review
against
cancellation
order
-
Maintainability of review - Seri Infrastructure's
case followed - Every Tribunal has the power
of review if there is a procedural defect - Held,
when the petitioner was not heard definitely a
Review was maintainable. (Para 6)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Seri Infrastructure Finance Limited Vs Tuff Drilling
Pvt. Ltd.; 2018(11) SCC 470
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner as to why his license for carrying the
firearm be not cancelled. On 3.6.2015, the
petitioner had appeared before the District
Magistrate, Varanasi. However, even before a
reply was filed the firearm license was cancelled
on 27.06.2017. The petitioner filed a Review
Application, which was also dismissed on
12.07.2017.
When,
however,
the
Review
Application was also dismissed, the petitioner
challenged the orders dated 27.06.2017 and
12.07.2017 before the Appellate Forum and the
Appeal was ultimately allowed on 5.3.2015 and
the matter was remanded back to the District
Magistrate,
Varanasi.
When
the
District
Magistrate, Varanasi refused to interfere in the
matter, after the matter was remanded back, the
instant writ petition has been filed against the
order dated 13.08.2018 as also against the
cancellation order dated 27.06.2015.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that after the District Magistrate had
set-aside the order dated 12.07.2015 and had
restored
the
Review
Application,
the
Review/Recall Application ought to have been
heard. He submits that it was incumbent upon
the District Magistrate to have heard the Review
Application, specially when the Appellate Court
had returned a definite finding that the earlier
order dated 27.06.2015 was passed without
hearing the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner relying upon a decision of the
Supreme Court reported in 2018(11) SCC 470;
(Seri Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. Tuff
Drilling Private Limited) has observed that when
a review was sought owing to the fact that the
quasi judicial Authority had not afforded proper
11 All. Ashok Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
317
opportunity of hearing then Review Application
was definitely maintainable.

4. Since the learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the paragraphs 22, 23 and
24 of the aforementioned judgement, the same is
being reproduced here asunder :-

" 22. Learned amicus curiae has
referred to judgment of this Court in Grindlays
Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Government Industrial
Tribunal & Ors., 1980 (Supp) SCC 420. In that
case this Court was considering the power of
industrial tribunal to set aside its ex-parte award
on being satisfied that there was sufficient cause.
The Court also noticed that there was no specific
express provision in the Act or the Rules giving
the tribunal jurisdiction to do so. In Para 6,
following was held:-

"6. We are of the opinion that the
Tribunal had the power to pass the impugned
order if it thought fit in the interest of justice. It
is true that there is no express provision in the
Act or the rules framed thereunder giving the
Tribunal jurisdiction to do so. But it is a well
known rule of statutory construction that a
Tribunal or body should be considered to be
endowed with such ancillary or incidental
powers as are necessary to discharge its
functions effectively for the purpose of doing
justice between the parties. In a case of this
nature, we are of the view that the Tribunal
should be considered as invested with such
incidental or ancillary powers unless there is any
indication in the statute to the contrary. We do
not find any such statutory prohibition. On the
other hand, there are indications to the contrary."

23. It is true that power of review has
to be expressly conferred by a Statute. This
Court in Paragraph 13 has also stated that the
word review is used in two distinct senses. This
Court further held that when a review is sought
due to a procedural defect, such power inheres in
every tribunal. In Paragraph 13, following was
observed:-

13. .... The expression "review" is used
in the two distinct senses, namely (1) a
procedural review which is either inherent or
implied in a court or Tribunal to set aside a
palpably erroneous order passed under a
misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on
merits when the error sought to be corrected is
one of law and is apparent on the face of the
record. It is in the latter sense that the court in
Patel Narshi Thakershi case held that no review
lies on merits unless a statute specifically
provides for it. Obviously when a review is
sought due to a procedural defect, the
inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal
must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent
the abuse of its process, and such power inheres
in every court or Tribunal."

24. In Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union Vs.
Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.
& Anr., (2005) 13 SCC 777, this Court again
held that a quasi-judicial authority is vested with
the power to invoke procedural review. In
Paragraph 19 of the judgment, following was
laid down:-

"19. Applying these principles it is
apparent that where a court or quasi-judicial
authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on
merit proceeds to do so, its judgment or order
can be reviewed on merit only if the court or the
quasi-judicial authority is vested with power of
review by express provision or by necessary
implication. The procedural review belongs to a
different category. In such a review, the court or
quasi-judicial authority having jurisdiction to
adjudicate proceeds to do so, but in doing so
commits
(sic
ascertains
whether
it
has
committed) a procedural illegality which goes to
the root of the matter and invalidates the
proceeding itself, and consequently the order
passed therein. Cases where a decision is
rendered by the court or quasi-judicial authority
without notice to the opposite party or under a
mistaken impression that the notice had been
served upon the opposite party, or where a
matter is taken up for hearing and decision on a
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
date other than the date fixed for its hearing, are
some illustrative cases in which the power of
procedural review may be invoked. In such a
case the party seeking review or recall of the
order does not have to substantiate the ground
that the order passed suffers from an error
apparent on the face of the record or any other
ground which may justify a review. He has to
establish that the procedure followed by the
court or the quasi-judicial authority suffered
from such illegality that it vitiated the
proceeding and invalidated the order made
therein,
inasmuch
as the
opposite
party
concerned was not heard for no fault of his, or
that the matter was heard and decided on a date
other than the one fixed for hearing of the matter
which he could not attend for no fault of his. In
such cases, therefore, the matter has to be
reheard in accordance with law without going
into the merit of the order passed. The order
passed is liable to be recalled and reviewed not
because it is found to be erroneous, but because
it was passed in a proceeding which was itself
vitiated by an error of procedure or mistake
which went to the root of the matter and
invalidated the entire proceeding. In Grindlays
Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal it
was held that once it is established that the
respondents were prevented from appearing at
the hearing due to sufficient cause, it followed
that the matter must be reheard and decided
again.""

5. Learned Standing Counsel, however, in
reply submitted that review is a creation of a
statute and until it is provided in the statute,
review did not lie. Further, the learned Standing
Counsel submitted that the petitioner should
have filed an Appeal against the order dated
13.08.2018.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel, the Court is of the view that when
the
Appellate
Court
after
returning
a
categorical finding that the petitioner was not
heard before the order dated 27.06.2015 was
passed had restored the Review Application
then it was incumbent upon the District
Magistrate to have heard the Review Petition.
Further as it has been held by the Supreme
Court in 2018(11) SCC 470, every Tribunal
has the power of review if there is a
procedural defect. In the instant case when the
petitioner was not heard definitely a Review
was maintainable.

7. Further the Court is of the view that
when a pure question of law was involved it
was not necessary for the petitioner to have
approached the Appellate Court.

8. Under such circumstances, the order
dated 13.08.2018 is set-aside, the Review
Petition
stands
restored.
The
District
Magistrate shall after affording an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner and also to the
State, pass appropriate orders on the Review
Petition within a period of two months from
the production of a copy of this order. Copy of
this order would be certified by the learned
counsel.

9. With these observations the writ
petition stands allowed.
----------
(2021)11ILR A318
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 6374 of 2021

U.P.S.R.T.C. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: