# Habib v. State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Rampur and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 238
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-02-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54236 of 1999
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/habib-v-state-of-u-p-through-district-magistrate-rampur-and-others-39806
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act- 1939 - section 110D-Claim petition - the review application
cannot be entertained either under the
old Act or under the new Act. Since there
is no specific provision to review the
revision, which is to be created under

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
238
court or tribunal, and if he can satisfy it
that such points were in fact pressed the
Court/Tribunal can reconsider its order.

5. We, therefore, give liberty to the
petitioner to approach the Tribunal in this
connection, and if he does so the Tribunal
will decide the application expeditiously
in the light of the observations made
above.

6. The writ petition is disposed off
accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.2.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54236 of 1999

Habib

...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh through District
Magistrate, Rampur and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dharmendra Singhal
Sri K.M. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Arms Act-section 17 and 18- mere
involvement in criminal case cannot in
any way effect the public security or
public interest and the order canceling or
revoking the license of fire has been set
aside. (Held in para 3)
Cases relied on - 1978 A.W.C. 122
1972 A.L.J. 573

The present impugned orders also suffer
from the same infirmity as was pointed
out by the Division Bench in the above
mentioned cases. I am in full agreement
with the view taken by the Division
Bench that these orders cannot be
sustained and deserve to be quashed and
are hereby quashed.

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

1. By means of the present writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, petitioner has
challenged the orders dated 31.5.1999
passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur
and the order dated 7.9.1999 passed by
the Commissioner, Moradabad Division,
Moradabad Annexure-1 and 3 to the writ
petition,
respectively,
under
the
provisions of Section 17 and 18 of the
Arms Act, cancelling the licence of his
fire-arm.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel representing the respondents.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
contends that the petitioner has been
served with a show cause notice under
Section 17 of the Arms Act asking him to
show cause as to why his fire arms licence
may not be cancelled and in reply thereto
he filed his objection stating therein that
he was never involved in criminal case
and he has not misused his gun as is
alleged in the show cause notice. The
further contention of the petitioner's
counsel is that two cases under Crime
Nos. 174 of 1993 and 178 of 1998 at
police
station
Bilashpur
and
Milak
Khanam, respectively, District Rampur
have been registered against six persons
of the locality, including the petitioner
and in which he has been falsely
implicated by the police due to enmity. It
is on the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., the
petitioner has been served with the
aforesaid show cause notice. A perusal of
the order of revocation of the licence
1All] Habib V. State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Rampur and others
239
demonstrates that the petitioner is a
person connected with the crime, referred
to above, and therefore he is not the
person with whom the fire arm should be
retained in public interest. The appellate
authority has also taken the same view,
thus this writ petition.

3. The question as to whether mere
involvement in a criminal case or
pendency of a criminal case can be a
ground for revocation of the license under
Arms Act, has been dealt with by a
Division Bench of this Court reported in
1978 A.W.C.122- Sheo Prasad Misra
Versus The District Magistrate, Basti
and others, wherein the Division Bench
relying upon the earlier decision reported
in 1972 A.L.J. 573- Masi Uddin Versus
Commissioner, Allahabad, found that
mere involvement in criminal case cannot
in any way affect the public security or
interest and the order cancelling or
revoking the license of fire arm has been
set aside. The present impugned orders
also suffer from the same infirmity as was
pointed out by the Division Bench in the
above-mentioned cases. I am in full
agreement with the view taken by the
Division Bench that these orders cannot
be sustained and deserve to be quashed
and are hereby quashed.

4. There is yet another reason that
during the pendency of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has been acquitted
from the aforesaid criminal case and at
present there is neither any case pending,
nor any conviction has been attributed to
the
petitioner,
as
is
evident
from
Annexure
SA-1
and
11
to
the
supplementary affidavit filed by the
petitioner. In this view of the matter, the
petitioner is entitled to have the fire-arm
license. It is submitted by petitioner's
counsel that the petitioner has been
acquitted of the charges.

5. In this view of the matter, if there
is nothing else, which may disentitle the
petitioner for renewal of his fire-arm
license, the respondents are directed to
renew
the
fire-arm
license
of
the
petitioner. The writ petition deserves to be
allowed and is hereby allowed. The orders
dated 31.5.1999 and 7.9.1999 (Annexure1 and 3 to the writ petition) passed by
respondent no. 1 and 2 are quashed
subject to the aforesaid directions.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6125 of 1997

Smt. Raj Kumar Devi and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Upper
District Judge, IInd District Jaunpur and
others

 ...Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri B.R. Yadav
Sri D.S.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dinesh Pathak
Sri H.O.K. Srivastava
Sri H.P. Misra
S.C.

Motor Vehicles Act- 1939 - section 110D-Claim petition - the review application
cannot be entertained either under the
old Act or under the new Act. Since there
is no specific provision to review the
revision, which is to be created under