# Dhan Pal Jain v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 800
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21398 of 1997
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dhan-pal-jain-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40204
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A) Arms Act Section 14 (3)-Grant of
Arms dealer Licence-State Government
Refused to grant Licence-No reason
recorded-
Held-
Reason
must
be
recorded as per section 14 (3) of the ActImpugned order quashed-

Held- Para 5

Case law:-
AIR 1967 S.C. 829
AIR 1998 S.C. 2779
AIR 1985 S.C. 1118

B) Constitution of India-Article 226-
grant of Fire Arms licence-whether the
Court can itself deal with the grant of
licence-Held, No Article 226 can not
assume the function of the licensing
authorities-matter remanded back to
licencing authority to decide accordance
with law-

Held- Para 6

This Court in exercise of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot assume the function of the
licensing authority for grant or refusal of
the arms licence.

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21398 of 1997

Dhan Pal Jain

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Jain
Sri R.K. Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.S. Sharma
Sri Raj Kumar
S.C.

A) Arms Act Section 14 (3)-Grant of
Arms dealer Licence-State Government
Refused to grant Licence-No reason
recorded-
Held-
Reason
must
be
recorded as per section 14 (3) of the ActImpugned order quashed-

Held- Para 5

Case law:-
AIR 1967 S.C. 829
AIR 1998 S.C. 2779
AIR 1985 S.C. 1118

B) Constitution of India-Article 226-
grant of Fire Arms licence-whether the
Court can itself deal with the grant of
licence-Held, No Article 226 can not
assume the function of the licensing
authorities-matter remanded back to
licencing authority to decide accordance
with law-

Held- Para 6

This Court in exercise of power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot assume the function of the
licensing authority for grant or refusal of
the arms licence.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain,
learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the
impugned order dated 19th June, 1997,
whereby the State Government has
refused to grant arms dealer's licence to
the petitioner under Form No. XI, copy
whereof is annexed as Annexure '1' to the
writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
Sri Jain argued that considering the facts
and circumstances of the case that the
petitioner has already possessed of a
licence under the Arms Act and is running
his business in the name and style of M/s
Cheap Gun House since 1972. He further
stated that the aforesaid arms dealer
licence is in Form 13, therefore there is no
justification for the State Government to
refuse the permission of grant of licence
to the petitioner which, according to Shri
Jain, is contrary to the provisions of
Section 14 of the Arms Act. Shri Jain
further submitted that in view of Subsection (3) of Section 14 of the Arms Act
while refusing to grant of licence, the
licensing authority is under the legal
obligation to record reasons for the same.
Sub-Section (3) of Section 14 of the Arms
Act is quoted below:

"Refusal of Licences

(1) ...............
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Dhan Pal Jain V. State of U.P. and another
801
(2) ...............
(3) Where the licensing authority refuses
to grant a licence to any person, it
shall record in writing the reasons
for such refusal and furnish to that
person on demand a brief statement
of the same unless in any case the
licensing authority is of the opinion
that it will not be in the public
interest to furnish such statement."

4. A bare perusal of the order
impugned in the present writ petition
demonstrates that no reason whatsoever
has been assigned in rejecting the
application for grant of Arms Dealer's
licence of the petitioner. Even on perusal
of the records, learned Standing Counsel
could not point out anything, which may
demonstrate that any reason has been
given by the State Government in
rejecting the petitioner's application for
grant of licence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
Shri Jain tried to argue that this writ
petition deserves to be allowed on the
short ground that no reason whatsoever
has been assigned in rejecting the
petitioner's application for grant of
licence, but the petitioner should not be
relegated again to the licensing authority
in the facts and circumstances of the
present case and for this purpose he relied
upon decisions of the apex Court,
reported in A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court,
829 Hari Chand Sarda Versus Mizo
District Council and another, and A.I.R.
1998 Supreme Court, 2779 National
Buildings
Construction
Corporation
Versus Raghunathan and others. He
further relied upon decisions of the apex
Court, reported in A.I.R. 1985 Supreme
Court, 1108 State of U.P. and another
Versus Raja Ram Jaiswal and another;
and A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court, 1118
Mohd. Azeem Versus District Judge,
Aligarh and others, as well as some other
decisions has also been relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Shri Jain next argued that this
Court should itself deal with the merits or
otherwise of the case of the petitioner as
to whether the petitioner is entitled for the
grant of licence in question or not? I am
afraid that this argument advanced on
behalf of the petitioner cannot be
accepted. This Court in exercise of power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot assume the function of the
licensing authority for grant or refusal of
the arms licence. In this view of the
matter, the argument advanced by Shri
Jain deserves to be rejected and is hereby
rejected.

7. In view of what has been stated
above,
since
there
is
no
reason
whatsoever mentioned in the order
impugned in the present writ petition, the
impugned order deserves to be quashed.

8. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 19th June, 1997, Annexure-'1'
to the writ petition is quashed. The matter
is remanded back to the Licensing
Authority
to
decide
the
same
in
accordance with law and also in the light
of the observations made above by this
Court in this judgment. Since the matter is
very
old,
therefore
the
Licensing
Authority is directed to decide the matter
expeditiously, preferably within a period
of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this
order before it.
---------
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R. S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13693 of 2003

Satendra Kumar Tripathi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.N. Singh
Sri H.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
14settlement of contract with civil supply
department-G.O. dated 13.8.81 provides
the mode for settlement only through
tender-contract
finalized
with
the
authorities inflagrant violation of the
said G.O., without inviting any tenderheld- illegal- amounts to discrimination
for other interested persons.

Held- Para 9

In the present case this entire procedure
has been given a complete go bye, and
instead respondent no. 3 has been
fragrantly violating the law and evidently
in collusion with respondents 6 and 7
has been granted transport and work
contracts without calling for any tender.
This has been done year after year since
the last three years or so. Not only
Article 14 of the Constitution has been
violated
but
also
the
G.O.
dated
13.5.2001
Annexure
1
to
the
writ
petition which states that contract shall
be given by inviting tender has been
violated.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1979 SC 1628, AIR 1983 SC 1207, AIR
1985 SC 1147, 1999 (i) AWC-817, 2003 (i)
(51) ALR 791

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Practice
or
Procedure-settlement
of
contract without following the procedure
prescribed either in G.O. or the ambit of
Article 14 of the Constitution court
expressed its great concern-direction
issued to enquire into the matter to
single court those guilty officer-held
responsible for violation of constitutional
ambit.

Held- Para 16

Since this petition has brought to light a
case of flagrant violation of law and
grant of public contracts illegally we
direct the Secretary, Food and Civil
Supply,
U.P.
to
order
a
thorough
investigation into the matter and strong
legal action against those responsible for
those
illegalities,
must
be
taken.
Compliance report must be sent to this
Court at the earliest.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition the
petitioner has prayed for a mandamus
restraining the respondents 6 and 7 from
working as transport contractor for the
respondent department after 31.3.2003
and to appoint transport and handling
contractor of Food and Civil Supply
Department of districts Sonbhadra, Sant
Ravi Das Nagar, Mirzapur for the
financial year 2003 -04 in accordance
with the G.O. dated 13.5.2001 only after
inviting tenders from the public at large
and permitting all eligible persons.

2. In this case on 30.1.2003 this
Court granted learned Standing Counsel
three weeks time to file counter affidavit
and issued notices to respondents 6 and 7
returnable at an early date. The order