# Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 695
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-09-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19751 of 1992
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-39971
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India- Article 226- The
petitioner would be entitled to possess a
second licence unless there is a valid
reason for not granting the same on
merits. In the present case, the District
Magistrate has not given any reason
whatsoever on merits but for the reason
that the Government order bars a person
to hold a second arms licence, - There
cannot be a blanket bar on possessing
two or more arms licences or weapons
by a person except for sufficient reasons.

Held in para 9

Having considered the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the record, I am of the
view that the impugned order dated
5.5.1992 of the District Magistrate,
Fatehpur is directed to reconsider the
case of the petitioner in the light of the
directions given and observations made
above. It is further directed that the
petitioner shall not be required to
deposit
his
pistol
till
the
District
Magistrate decides his application.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Chandra Pratap Singh V. State of U.P. and others
695
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 3.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19751 of 1992

Chandra Pratap Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S. Farman Ahmad Naqvi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vinaya Malviya
S.C.

Constitution of India- Article 226- The
petitioner would be entitled to possess a
second licence unless there is a valid
reason for not granting the same on
merits. In the present case, the District
Magistrate has not given any reason
whatsoever on merits but for the reason
that the Government order bars a person
to hold a second arms licence, - There
cannot be a blanket bar on possessing
two or more arms licences or weapons
by a person except for sufficient reasons.

Held in para 9

Having considered the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the record, I am of the
view that the impugned order dated
5.5.1992 of the District Magistrate,
Fatehpur is directed to reconsider the
case of the petitioner in the light of the
directions given and observations made
above. It is further directed that the
petitioner shall not be required to
deposit
his
pistol
till
the
District
Magistrate decides his application.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. The petitioner was granted pistol
licence on 5.7.1975. Thus he possessed a
pistol. The licence was due for renewal in
1981 and the renewal applications of the
petitioner remained pending for one
reason or the other. It was only on
16.1.1990 that the District Magistrate
rejected the application of the petitioner
for renewal of the pistol licence, not on
merits but on the ground that the
application was filed after much delay
without
there
being
a
satisfactory
explanation for the same. Against the said
order of the District Magistrate, the
petitioner filed an appeal before the
Commissioner,
Allahabad
Division,
Allahabad. The appeal was also dismissed
on 29.5.1990. Challenging the said orders,
the petitioner filed writ petition no. 22751
of 1990, which was decided on 30.1.1991.
This Court ordered that the petitioner may
file a fresh application for grant of
licence, which was directed to be
considered and decided by the District
Magistrate within four months. The
petitioner was permitted by this Court to
continue to possess the pistol till disposal
of the application.

2. In pursuance of the aforesaid
order of this Court, the petitioner filed an
application on 18.4.1991 for grant of fresh
licence. The District Magistrate called for
a report from the police of the area but the
same was not submitted within the
stipulated
time.
By
virtue
of
the
provisions of Section 13 of the Indian
Arms Act, the District Magistrate then
proceeded to decide the application of the
petitioner without the police report. Vide
order dated 5.5.1992, relying on the
provisions of the Government order no.
1083 dated 13.03.1992, the District
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
Magistrate rejected the application of the
petitioner for grant of pistol licence
merely on the ground that he was already
in possession of the another weapon
licence
i.e.
SBBL/DBBL
gun.
The
petitioner was also directed to deposit the
pistol.

3. This petition has been filed
challenging the aforesaid order dated
5.5.1992 of the District Magistrate,
Fatehpur. By means of an interim order
passed in this writ petition, the impugned
order of the District Magistrate, in so far
as it directed that the pistol would be
forfeited in favour of the state, was
stayed.

4. I have heard Sri S. Farman
Ahmad Naqvi learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Vinaya Malviya,
learned standing counsel on behalf of the
respondents.

5. It is not disputed that the
petitioner was granted a licence for
SBBL/DDBL gun in the year 1986, which
has been renewed from time to time and is
still valid. It may be noteworthy to
mention that the petitioner was granted a
fresh SBBL/DBBL gun licence and the
same was also renewed during the period
when the petitioner was refused renewal
of the pistol licence. It is also relevant that
in the years 1986 and 1989 the police
submitted its report of the petitioner with
regard to the renewal of his licence. It was
only in 1988 that the police had submitted
its report against the petitioner wherein
also there was no criminal case reported
to be registered or pending against the
petitioner, but merely a vague charge had
been levelled that the petitioner was a
person of rash and angry tempermant. In a
subsequent report of the police dated
31.12.1991 (Annexure 9 to the writ
petition) which was filed in response to
the
renewal
application
of
the
SBBL/DBBL. Licence of the petitioner.,
it was reported that the petitioner had
good moral character and no criminal case
was pending against him. Even the
Tehsildar of the area had, on 24.9.1991,
recommended that the petitioner required
the gun for his safety.

6. The order dated 5.5.1992 of the
District Magistrate impugned in this writ
petition has to be examined in the light of
the aforesaid reports of the authorities,
more so because the District Magistrate
proceeded to decide the application of the
petitioner without any fresh report of the
police. The police report dated 31.12.1991
submitted just a few months before the
passing of the impugned order cannot be
ignored especially when the filing of the
same has not been denied in the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents.

7. The Government Order dated
13.3.1992 which has been relied upon by
the District Magistrate mentions that if an
applicant does not possess an arms licence
then he would be entitled to the relaxation
of the bar imposed by the Government
order dated 16.12.1985. In my opinion,
the same would not prohibit the licensing
authority to issue a fresh second licence
or to renew another licence of the
applicant. The petitioner would be entitled
to possess a second licence unless there is
a valid reason for not granting the same
on merits. In the present case, the District
Magistrate has not given any reason
whatsoever on merits but for the reason
that the Government Order bars a person
to hold a second arms licence, which as
stated above, is not the correct position.
There cannot be a blanket bar on
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Ujagar Singh V. Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly and another
697
possessing two or more arms licences or
weapons by a person except for sufficient
reasons.

8. It has further been submitted that
the petitioner has been in possession of
the pistol all throughout till date but no
untoward incident has been reported nor
any charge has been levelled against the
petitioner with regard to misuse of the
arms possessed by him.

9.

Having
considered
the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the record, I
am of the view that the impugned order
dated 5.5.1992 of the District Magistrate
deserves to be quashed. The District
Magistrate,
Fatehpur
is
directed
to
reconsider the case of the petitioner for
grant of a pistol licence and to pass
appropriate orders on the application of
the petitioner in the light of the directions
given and observations made above. It is
further directed that the petitioner shall
not be required to deposit his pistol till the
District
Magistrate
decides
his
application.

10. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, the writ petition is allowed
but without any order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 6.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40394 of 1999

Ujagar Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Arms Act- Cancellation of Gun licence-
on alleged involvement in criminal case
u/s 307 IPC and SC/ST Act. During
pendency of writ petition- petitioner got
fair
acquittal-
No
grounds
for
cancellation
of
fire
arms
exist-
cancellation order quashed.

Held- Para 3

A perusal of the orders passed by the
licensing authority as well as by the
appellate authority clearly demonstrate
that since the petitioner was involved in
a criminal case under Section 307 IPC
and
SC/ST
Act,
which
has
been
registered as case crime no. 294 of 1996,
his license has been registered as case
crime no. 294 of 1996, his license has
been cancelled. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has filed a supplementary
affidavit, wherein he has annexed a
certified copy of the judgment and order
dated 7.11.2001 as Annexure SA 1,
passed in Sessions Trial No. 677 of 1998
out of case crime no. 294 of 1996. A bare
reading of the aforesaid judgment would
make it clear that the petitioner has
been acquitted of the charges, which
have been leveled against him. In this
view of the matter, now there is no