# Babu Ram v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 599
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9511 of 2009
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/babu-ram-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42221
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

2 All] Babu Ram V. State of U.P. and others
599

31. Bearing in the mind the principle
aforesaid, I am of the view that if the Joint
Director is conferred only this much power
to ask the District Inspector of Schools,
reason for delay and to issue a direction to
him to take decision within reasonable
time, will not be tantamount to exceed the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

32. Regard being had to the fact that
section 16-A (7) provided forum to decide
the election dispute of Committee of
Management. The Joint Director had
jurisdiction to decide the claim of rival
Committee of Management but in view of
large number of complaints received by the
State Government that Authority entrusted
the statutory obligations are misusing their
power
under
Act
1921,
the
State
Government issued Government Order
19.12.2000
for
redistributing
the
jurisdiction to various authorities at
regional level. The validity of the
Government Order was challenged in this
Court. However, this Court upheld its
validity. The Regional Committees so
constituted are functioning smoothly for
more than a decade

33.

In
the
totality
of
the
circumstances, a direction is issued upon
the District Inspector of Schools to take
decision in accordance with law in the
matter of suspension of respondent no. 4
within two weeks from the date of
communication of this order. If the District
Inspector of Schools for any reason fails to
take the decision within the said period, the
Committee of Management may file a
representation before the Joint Director.

34. The writ petition is allowed in the
aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9511 of 2009

Babu Ram

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Uemsh Chandra Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Arms Act-Section 17 (3) (b)-cancellation
of fire arm license on ground of public
interest-can be canceled on ground of
public safety-public safety can not be
equated
with
Public
interest-when
statute do not provide such groundlicensing
authority
committed
great
illegality-both
order
quashed-being
without jurisdiction.

Held: Para 3

Both
the
authorities
below
have
recorded
their
satisfaction
that
cancellation
of
petitioner's
firearm
licence is necessary for public interest.
Under Section 17 of Arms Act a firearm
licence cannot be cancelled in public
interest.
The
grounds
specifically
mentioned says that it is only either of
public peace or safety. The word "public
interest" is not the same thing as "public
peace" or "public safety". In fact the
word "public interest" is much wider
than the word "public peace" or "public
safety". When Legislature itself has not
conferred any power upon the licensing
authority to cancel a firearm licence in
public interest, such exercise in public
interest by authorities below is wholly
without jurisdiction.
Case law discussed:
2003 All L.J. 1769; 2012 (4) ADJ 716
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dubey,
Advocate holding brief on behalf of Sri
Umesh Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is directed against
the order dated 31.01.2007 passed by
Additional District Magistrate, Etawah
cancelling firearm licence of petitioner
observing that allowing licence with
petitioner is not in public interest. For the
same reason the Commissioner has also
rejected petitioner's appeal vide order dated
19.07.2008, which has also been impugned
in this writ petition.

3. Both the authorities below have
recorded their satisfaction that cancellation
of petitioner's firearm licence is necessary
for public interest. Under Section 17 of
Arms Act a firearm licence cannot be
cancelled in public interest. The grounds
specifically mentioned says that it is only
either of public peace or safety. The word
"public interest" is not the same thing as
"public peace" or "public safety". In fact the
word "public interest" is much wider than
the word "public peace" or "public safety".
When Legislature itself has not conferred
any power upon the licensing authority to
cancel a firearm licence in public interest,
such exercise in public interest by
authorities
below
is
wholly
without
jurisdiction.

4. In Dharamvir Singh Vs. The
State, 2003 All L.J. 1769, the Court in para
6 of the judgement said:

"There
is
no
finding
that
the
revocation of licence was considered
necessary for the security of the public
peace or public safety. Public interest
cannot be equated to term for the security of
the public peace or public safety. . . . . . ."

5. The above decision has been
followed in Rajendra Deo Pandey Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2012(4) ADJ
716.

6. Learned Standing Counsel also
could not dispute having gone through the
impugned orders that the two orders have
been passed holding that it is necessary in
public interest and no for the reasons stated
in Section 17(3)(b) of the Act.

7. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned orders dated
31.01.2007 and 19.07.2008 are hereby
quashed. No costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BHARATI SAPRU, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 10855 of 1998

Naththi Lal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Asstt.Regional
Manager
UPSRTC
&
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajiv Sharma
Sri A.K. Tripathi
Sri T.R. Gupta
Sri Rahul Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
Sri V.P. Mathur
Sri Samir Sharma

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226termination
from
service-petitioner