# Ayodhya Prasad v. Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow and another - **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 195 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2012-02-10 - **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ayodhya-prasad-v-commissioner-lucknow-division-lucknow-and-another-42093 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Arms Act-Section 13-Refusal of licensenon disclosure of name of anti social element-virtually inviting trouble and direct conflict with those anti social elements-in absence of guaranteed social security as well as of life and liberty-rejection on flimsy groundignoring favorable reports by Tehsil authorities as well as Police-order suffers from serious perversity-appellant authority also-based on mechanical consideration-held-orders impugned quashed-direction for fresh consideration given. Held: Para 4 Arm licence is granted not only in the event of threat perception from certain person but it may be granted with the possible threat perception. In case a person's status, nature of job, movement and social life is such that he can be assaulted by some one or he may suffer untoward incident from anti-sicial elements, then in such a situation, he or she shall be entitled for grant of arm licence. It is not necessary that while moving application, the citizen should indicate the name of the person from whom he/she may suffer injury. Indication of such fact or the name of the person from whom, the citizen may suffer injury shall amount to invite trouble and direct conflict with antisocial elements. We may take judicial notice of the fact that the crime in the society is rising day to day and the police has been failed to provide reasonable protection to citizens. It is not necessary that life and liberty of every citizen may be secured by the police. Accordingly, in absence of guaranteed social security or security of life and liberty of the citizen, the citizen may move application for grant of arm licence. Statutory right conferred by the Arms Act cannot be taken away on flimsy ground or on presumption . Unless a citizen has got some bad antecedent or there is possibility with regard to involvement in crime or abuse of weapon, the arm licence should not be refused more so when the government is not in a position to provide security to the citizens on individual basis. Thus, the reason assigned by the District Magistrate refusing the grant of licence does not seem to be sustainable and suffers from vice of arbitrariness. The appellate authority has decided the appeal mechanically by reiterating the finding recorded by the District Magistrate and has not applied his mind with regard to justifiability of the order passed by the Collector rejecting the petitioner's application. ## Text 1 All] Ayodhya Prasad V. Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow and another 195 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 10.02.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH,J. Misc. Single No. - 6179 of 2011 Ayodhya Prasad ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Alok Kumar Shukla Sri V.S. Trivedi Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Arms Act-Section 13-Refusal of licensenon disclosure of name of anti social element-virtually inviting trouble and direct conflict with those anti social elements-in absence of guaranteed social security as well as of life and liberty-rejection on flimsy groundignoring favorable reports by Tehsil authorities as well as Police-order suffers from serious perversity-appellant authority also-based on mechanical consideration-held-orders impugned quashed-direction for fresh consideration given. Held: Para 4 Arm licence is granted not only in the event of threat perception from certain person but it may be granted with the possible threat perception. In case a person's status, nature of job, movement and social life is such that he can be assaulted by some one or he may suffer untoward incident from anti-sicial elements, then in such a situation, he or she shall be entitled for grant of arm licence. It is not necessary that while moving application, the citizen should indicate the name of the person from whom he/she may suffer injury. Indication of such fact or the name of the person from whom, the citizen may suffer injury shall amount to invite trouble and direct conflict with antisocial elements. We may take judicial notice of the fact that the crime in the society is rising day to day and the police has been failed to provide reasonable protection to citizens. It is not necessary that life and liberty of every citizen may be secured by the police. Accordingly, in absence of guaranteed social security or security of life and liberty of the citizen, the citizen may move application for grant of arm licence. Statutory right conferred by the Arms Act cannot be taken away on flimsy ground or on presumption . Unless a citizen has got some bad antecedent or there is possibility with regard to involvement in crime or abuse of weapon, the arm licence should not be refused more so when the government is not in a position to provide security to the citizens on individual basis. Thus, the reason assigned by the District Magistrate refusing the grant of licence does not seem to be sustainable and suffers from vice of arbitrariness. The appellate authority has decided the appeal mechanically by reiterating the finding recorded by the District Magistrate and has not applied his mind with regard to justifiability of the order passed by the Collector rejecting the petitioner's application. (Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J. ) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. With the consent of the parties' counsel, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at admission stage. 2. The petitioner has applied for grant of arm licence which has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Lucknow by the impugned order dated 196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 26.11.2010. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order was also dismissed by the appellate authority, i.e. the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. 3. While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that while moving application for grant of arm licence in the column relating to special reason, the petitioner had not pointed out with regard to the person from whom he is suffering from threat perception. 4. Arm licence is granted not only in the event of threat perception from certain person but it may be granted with the possible threat perception. In case a person's status, nature of job, movement and social life is such that he can be assaulted by some one or he may suffer untoward incident from anti-sicial elements, then in such a situation, he or she shall be entitled for grant of arm licence. It is not necessary that while moving application, the citizen should indicate the name of the person from whom he/she may suffer injury. Indication of such fact or the name of the person from whom, the citizen may suffer injury shall amount to invite trouble and direct conflict with anti-social elements. We may take judicial notice of the fact that the crime in the society is rising day to day and the police has been failed to provide reasonable protection to citizens. It is not necessary that life and liberty of every citizen may be secured by the police. Accordingly, in absence of guaranteed social security or security of life and liberty of the citizen, the citizen may move application for grant of arm licence. Statutory right conferred by the Arms Act cannot be taken away on flimsy ground or on presumption . Unless a citizen has got some bad antecedent or there is possibility with regard to involvement in crime or abuse of weapon, the arm licence should not be refused more so when the government is not in a position to provide security to the citizens on individual basis. Thus, the reason assigned by the District Magistrate refusing the grant of licence does not seem to be sustainable and suffers from vice of arbitrariness. The appellate authority has decided the appeal mechanically by reiterating the finding recorded by the District Magistrate and has not applied his mind with regard to justifiability of the order passed by the Collector rejecting the petitioner's application. 5. During the course of argument, it has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the police as well as the tehsil authorities have submitted a report in the petitioner's favour. In case it is so, then the impugned order suffers from serious perversity. In the event of dissenting view, it was incumbent on the District Magistrate to record reasons or point out the difference of opinion with the report submitted by the police and tehsil authorities. It appears that it has not been done in the present case. Hence, on this ground also, the decision suffers from vice of arbitrariness. 6. In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated 8.6.2011 and 26.11.2010 (Annexures 1 and 2) with consequential benefits. The District Magistrate/Collector, Lucknow is directed to re-consider the petitioner's case for grant of arm licence and if 1 All] Ram Pal Singh V. Director of Agriculture U.P.and others 197 necessary after inviting fresh report from the police authorities. Let necessary exercise be done within a period of four months from the date of service of certified copy of the present order. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 03.02.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR,J. Service Single No. - 6204 of 1991 Ram Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Director of Agriculture U.P.and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.C. Bajpai Sri R.B. Lal Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226punishment of dismissal-without discussion of charges and evidence-even during course of enquiry-copy of certain documents not given-disciplinary authority on basis of proposed punishment as suggested by enquiry officer-imposed major punishmentAppellate Authority also not addressed on merit in absence reasons-held-enquiry officer-no jurisdiction to recommend punishment-considering long period of mental suffering and growing age of 71 year-instead of remanding for fresh consideration on principle of "No Work No Pay"-petitioner will not get any amount of salary during period of non working but entitled for every consequential post retrial benefits. Held: Para 19 For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders are set aside. However, keeping in view the principle of no work no pay, the petitioner is not entitled for any salary for the intervening period but this period shall not be treated as break in service but the same shall be treated as continuation of service for other consequential and post retiral benefits. Case law discussed: (2008) 8 SCC 236; (1009) 1 SCC (L&S) 806; 1971 (1) AIIER 1148; 1974 (4) IRC 120 (NIRC); (2001) 29 LCD 2265 (Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J. ) 1. Heard Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.S. Tripathi, learned State counsel and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that petitioner was initially appointed in the Agriculture Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh on Grade III post by order dated 15.06.1964 passed by Director of Agriculture and posted as Assistant Agriculture Inspector at Government Agriculture Seed Store, Manglaur, Saharanpur. 3. By an order dated 31.01.1978 (Anneuxre No. 4), he was placed under suspension. On 19.05.1978 (Anneuxre No. 5) a chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner, after receiving same , as per the version of the petitioner, he demanded certain documents but the same has not been supplied to him, as such being no other alternative left before him, submitted his reply on 05.09.1978 (Anneuxre No. 6) inter alia denying charges leveled against him and in his reply he stated that Sri Suresh Chand Sharma was responsible for the embezzlement of DAP fertilizer who had received the fertilizer stock in question thereafter inquiry was conducted by Inquiry Officer who submitted the inquiry