# Brij Nandan Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 987
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-08-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45471 of 2011
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brij-nandan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42010
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Denial
of
Fire
Arms
License-on
ground-no
adequate evidence regarding endanger
of life and liberty and by whom-heldauthorities ought not to behave like part
of old British-to crush every demand of a
pity subject-but deserves to consider
with grater respect and honour-with
more pragmatic and practical approach.

Held: Para 8

The authorities empowered to grant
licence under the Act ought not to
behave as if they are part of the old
British sovereignty and the applicant is a
pity
subject
whose
every
demand
deserved to be crushed on one or the
other pretext. The requirement of an
Indian citizen governed by rule of law
under the Indian Constitution deserved
to be considered with greater respect
and honour. The authorities thus shall
have considered the requirement of
applicant
with
more
pragmatic
and
practical approach. Unless they find that
in the garb of safety and security,
applicant in fact intend to use the
988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

weapon by obtaining a licence for a
purpose other than self defence, it ought
not to have been denied such licence. I
am not putting the statutory power of
authority concerned in a compartment
since there may be more than one
reasons
for
exercising
statutory
discretion against applicant but then
that must justify in the context of
purpose and objective of statute and
necessarily ought not be whimsical.
Case law discussed:
2010(10) ADJ 782; Vinod Kumar Shukla Vs.
State of U.P. and others, (Writ Petition No.
38645 of 2011), decided on 15.07.2011

## Text

2 All] Brij Nandan Singh V. State of U.P. and others

987
Evidence Act, 1872, and the presumption
is subject to such proof. This can only be
done in a regular proceeding before a
court of competent jurisdiction.

10. Not only this, prima facie, such a
will has to be proved before it is accepted.
In the instant case, a clear finding has
been recorded to the effect that the
petitioners failed to lead any evidence in
support
of
the
will
including
the
production of the attesting witnesses. It is
on this basis that the will has been
doubted. There is another circumstance
which has been indicated in the orders,
namely, that the death of the tenure holder
took place on 26th July, 1980. In such a
situation, the execution of the will on the
same day and its registration makes the
document doubtful. The authorities below
have therefore only expressed a doubt
which also stands corroborated by the
judgment in the second appeal quoted
hereinabove.

11. The contesting respondent no. 5
may have lost the battle before the civil
court but the present petitioners who were
the defendants have also not gained
anything out of the said proceedings
except for an observation that the will was
suspicious.

12. Considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case and the
discussion
made
hereinabove,
the
petitioners will also have to establish their
title in accordance with law and any
orders
passed
during
mutation
proceedings would always be subject to
the outcome of a regular suit. In such a
situation, I am not inclined to interfere
with the impugned orders.

13. The writ petition lacks merit and
is accordingly dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45471 of 2011

Brij Nandan Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.A. Azmi
Sri Riyajuddin Ansari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Denial
of
Fire
Arms
License-on
ground-no
adequate evidence regarding endanger
of life and liberty and by whom-heldauthorities ought not to behave like part
of old British-to crush every demand of a
pity subject-but deserves to consider
with grater respect and honour-with
more pragmatic and practical approach.

Held: Para 8

The authorities empowered to grant
licence under the Act ought not to
behave as if they are part of the old
British sovereignty and the applicant is a
pity
subject
whose
every
demand
deserved to be crushed on one or the
other pretext. The requirement of an
Indian citizen governed by rule of law
under the Indian Constitution deserved
to be considered with greater respect
and honour. The authorities thus shall
have considered the requirement of
applicant
with
more
pragmatic
and
practical approach. Unless they find that
in the garb of safety and security,
applicant in fact intend to use the
988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

weapon by obtaining a licence for a
purpose other than self defence, it ought
not to have been denied such licence. I
am not putting the statutory power of
authority concerned in a compartment
since there may be more than one
reasons
for
exercising
statutory
discretion against applicant but then
that must justify in the context of
purpose and objective of statute and
necessarily ought not be whimsical.
Case law discussed:
2010(10) ADJ 782; Vinod Kumar Shukla Vs.
State of U.P. and others, (Writ Petition No.
38645 of 2011), decided on 15.07.2011

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents.

2. Considering the pure legal
submission advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel states that he does not propose
to file any counter affidavit and the writ
petition may be disposed of finally at
this stage under the Rules of this Court.

3. It is contended that fire arm
licence was applied by petitioner which
has been declined by District Magistrate
on the ground that petitioner did not
prove by adducing adequate evidence
that his life and liberty is endangered
and if so by whom. That order has been
confirmed in appeal.

4. It is contended that unless
otherwise shown, every person is
entitled to take care of his safety and
security particularly when efficiency of
State
Police
to
provide
adequate
security is quite doubtful considering
the total number of population vis a vis
police
personnel.
Here
both
the
authorities have rejected petitioner's
application on a nonest ground. The
orders are based on conjecture and
surmises.

5. Learned Standing Counsel
having gone through the impugned
order could not support the impugned
orders.

6. This Court in Pawan Kumar
Jha Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2010(10) ADJ 782 has held that undue
restriction on keeping and bearing arms
ought not be based on unfounded fear.
Licence is normally to be granted unless
there is something adverse.

7. A fire arm licence cannot be
denied only on conjectures and surmises
and without appreciating the objective
of statute under which the power is
being exercised. Right to life and liberty
which includes within its ambit right of
security and safety of a person and
taking, adopting and pursuing such
means as are necessary for such safety
and security, is a fundamental right of
every person. Keeping a fire arm for the
purpose of personal safety and security
is a mode and manner of protection of
oneself and enjoyment of fundamental
right of life and liberty under Article 21
of the Constitution. In the interest of
maintenance of law and order certain
reasonable
restrictions
have
been
imposed on such right but that would
not make the fundamental right itself to
be dependant on the vagaries of
executive authorities. It is not a kind of
privilege being granted by Government
to individual but only to the extent
where grant of fire arm licence to an
individual
would
demonstratively
prejudice
or
adversely
affect
the
2 All] Brij Nandan Singh V. State of U.P. and others

989
maintenance of law and order including
peace and tranquility in the society,
ordinarily such right shall not be denied.
It is in these circumstances, this Court
has observed that grant of fire arm
licence ordinarily be an action and
denial an exception. In Vinod Kumar
Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others,
(Writ Petition No. 38645 of 2011),
decided on 15.07.2011 this Court has
said:

"When a fire arm licence is granted
for personal safety and security it does
not mean that in the family consisting of
several persons only one fire arm
licence is to be granted. Moreover, this
cannot be a reason for denial of arm
licence. Fire arm licence can be denied
only if the reason assigned by applicant
or details given by him in application
are not found to be correct but merely
because there are one fire arm licence
already possessed by one of the family
member, the same cannot be denied.
Grant of fire arm licence should
ordinarily be an action and denial
should be an exception. The approach of
authorities below is clearly arbitrary
and illegal. It also lacks purpose and
objective of the statute."

8. The authorities empowered to
grant licence under the Act ought not to
behave as if they are part of the old
British sovereignty and the applicant is
a pity subject whose every demand
deserved to be crushed on one or the
other pretext. The requirement of an
Indian citizen governed by rule of law
under the Indian Constitution deserved
to be considered with greater respect
and honour. The authorities thus shall
have considered the requirement of
applicant with more pragmatic and
practical approach. Unless they find that
in the garb of safety and security,
applicant in fact intend to use the
weapon by obtaining a licence for a
purpose other than self defence, it ought
not to have been denied such licence. I
am not putting the statutory power of
authority concerned in a compartment
since there may be more than one
reasons
for
exercising
statutory
discretion against applicant but then that
must justify in the context of purpose
and objective of statute and necessarily
ought not be whimsical.

9. Both impugned orders in the
case in hand shows that on wholly
conjectures and surmises the authorities
have denied petitioner's claim for fire
arm licence and have rejected his
application in a most arbitrary manner.
The two orders, therefore, cannot
sustain.

10. In view of above, the writ
petition is allowed. The impugned
orders
dated
25/27.01.2011
and
12.05.2011 are hereby quashed and the
matter is remanded back to the Collector
concerned to consider the same afresh in
accordance with law and in the light of
observations made above and pass a
fresh order within a period of one month
from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.
---------
990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47088 of 2005

Ram Charan Pal and another ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru' Secy. Industry and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bhoopendra Nath Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.K. Mishra
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226transfer-class 4th employee-transfered
from Govt. Press Allahabad to Govt.
Press Rampur-main thrust of argumentGroup
'D'
employee
can
not
be
transferred outside the District-heldmisconceived-once an employee hold
transferable post-can not be allow to
work at place of his choice-considering
ex-parte-interim order-continuing since
last 6 years-very purpose of transfer
itself frustrated-petition dismissed with
cost of Rs. 15000/-.

Held: Para 46

In view of the above discussion and in
absence of any provision to show that a
Class
IV
employee
shall
not
be
transferred outside the district, it cannot
be said that the order of transfer is
illegal. Even the Government Order
dated 4.10.1979, referred to by the
petitioners, does not say so but in given
circumstances, it requires that ordinarily
transfer of Class IV employees may be
made within the district but there is no
complete embargo for their transfer
outside the district. Moreover, since
1979 repeatedly several Government
Orders have been issued laying down
guidelines
for
transfers
and
in
supersession of earlier orders. They have
been issued on annual basis.
Case law discussed:
2004 SCC (L & S) 631; AIR 1974 SC 555; 1977
(4) SCC 193; JT 1986 (1) SC 249; AIR 1989 SC
1433; AIR 1991 SC 532; JT 1992 (6) SC 732;
1993 (1) SCC 148; 1993 Suppl. SCC 704; JT
1994 (5) SC 298; 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 169;
2001 (8) SCC 574; 2003(4) SCC 104; 2004
(11) SCC 402; JT 2004 (2) SC 371; 2005 (7)
SCC 227; Special Appeal No. 1296 of 2005
(Gulzar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others); 2007
(8) SCC 793; JT 2007 (12) SC 467; 2007 (9)
SCC 539; 2009 (11) SCALE 416; JT 2009 (10)
SC 187; AIR 1993 SC 2444; 1992 (1) SCC 306;
2005 (2) ESC 1224; Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 52249 of 2000 (Dr. Krishna Chandra
Dubey Vs. Union of India & others) ; Gulab
Singh (supra) and Ram Niwas Pandey & others
Vs. Union of India & others (Special Appeal
No. 769 of 2005); Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
243 (SB) of 2007 Uma Shankar Rai Vs. State
of U.P. & others; (1993) 4 SCC-25; (1994) 6
SCC-98; (1985) 1 All. ER 40; (1998(16) LCD17); 2009 (4) ALJ 372; 2008 (2) ESC 1141;
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222; AIR 1996 Supreme
Court 326; JT 1996 (8) S.C. 550; AIR 2003
Supreme Court 1344; 2008(4) ADJ36=2008
(2) ESC 1312; 2008 (3) ADJ 705

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.)

1. Since the writ petition has been
restored to its original number vide order
of date, as requested and agreed by
learned counsel for the parties, I proceed
to hear the matter finally under the rules
of the Court at this stage.

2. The order impugned in this writ
petition is dated 8th June, 2005 whereby
the petitioners working as Gateman,
Government Press Allahabad have been
transferred to Government Press, Rampur
by
Director,
Mudran
and
Lekhan
Samagri, U.P. Allahabad (hereinafter
referred
as
"Director"
)