# Hakimuddin v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1572
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-21
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 9952 of 2023
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hakimuddin-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51305
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article 226 - Rules 15 and 16 of the Arms
Rules
2016-cancellation
of
the
arms
license on the grounds of not obtaining a
unique
identification
number
as
per
government notification dated 22 january,
2020-petitioner license was issued in
1987 and last renewed in 2018, was
wrongfully cancelled because the licensing
authority failed to generate the UIN-The
court held that Rules 15 and 16 assign the
responsibility of generating the UIN to the
licensing authority, not the license holderHence, the cancellation was illegal and the
directions issued to the authority to
generate the UIN within four weeks and
imposed exemplary costs of Rs.25000 on
the State.(Para 1 to 22)
The petition is allowed.( E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

1572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order dated 5th July, 2011 together
with 6% interest due from the date
that each year's honorarium fell due until
payment.

18. There shall be no order is to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1572
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ-C No. 9952 of 2023

Hakimuddin ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article 226 - Rules 15 and 16 of the Arms
Rules
2016-cancellation
of
the
arms
license on the grounds of not obtaining a
unique
identification
number
as
per
government notification dated 22 january,
2020-petitioner license was issued in
1987 and last renewed in 2018, was
wrongfully cancelled because the licensing
authority failed to generate the UIN-The
court held that Rules 15 and 16 assign the
responsibility of generating the UIN to the
licensing authority, not the license holderHence, the cancellation was illegal and the
directions issued to the authority to
generate the UIN within four weeks and
imposed exemplary costs of Rs.25000 on
the State.(Para 1 to 22)
The petition is allowed.( E-6)

List of cases cited:
1. Subrata Roy Sahara Vs U.O.I.(2014) 8 SCC
470

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
Staterespondents.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed
praying for the following main reliefs:-

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari thereby quash
impugned order dated 07.10.2023 annexed as
Annexure No. 7 to this petition.

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
opposite parties specially opp. Party No. 2/
District Magistrate to restore and renew arm
license No. 838/ADM/City/87 of the petitioner
and also generate Unique Identification
Number. "

3. The contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner was having
an arms license which was issued on
19.06.1987 from Rajasthan and subsequently
was transferred to Uttar Pradesh. The last
renewal of the license took place on 06.06.2018
by which it was renewed upto 17.05.2021 by
the competent authority in District- Pratapgarh.
Copy of the renewal is annexure 3 to the writ
petition.

4. Subsequent thereto, the respondent no.
2 i.e District Magistrate, Pratapgarh vide
impugned order dated 07.10.2023, a copy of
which is annexure 7 to the petition has
cancelled the arms license of the petitioner
placing reliance on a report dated 29.09.2023
and Government orders issued from time to
time per which it has been indicated that as
the petitioner failed to get a Unique
2 All. Hakimuddin Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1573
Identification Number (hereinafter referred
to as "UIN") as such, the license has been
cancelled.

5. Placing reliance on Rules 15 & 16
of the Arms Rules, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as "Rules, 2016") which have
come into force w.e.f 15.07.2016, the
argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that a duty is cast upon the
licensing authority while either granting or
renewing a license to enter the data of the
record locally in an electronic format
specified by the Central Government and
for generation of UIN. It is also contended
that once the rules themselves provide that
it is the duty of the licensing authority to
generate the UIN and to upload it on the portal
on the National Database of Arms License
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"NDAL")
consequently, the order impugned by which the
license of the petitioner has been cancelled on
the ground of the petitioner not having obtained
the UIN, is clearly an act not countenanced in
the eyes of law and thus it is prayed that the
impugned order be set aside with exemplary
cost against the respondents who have failed to
follow the statutory rules which have been
issued in this regard.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing
counsel on the basis of averments contained in
the counter affidavit argues that it is the duty of
the license holder to obtain the UIN number
keeping
in
viewthe
notification
dated
22.01.2020, a copy of which is part of annexure
CA-2 to the counter affidavit. He argues that the
said notification provides that those license
holder whose license has not been recorded on
the NDAL portal, it should be ensured that the
licenses are endorsed on the NDAL portal and a
UIN is issued and those licenses which are not
uploaded by 29.06.2020 on the NDAL portal
should
be considered
as invalid
w.e.f
30.06.2020. Considering this notification and a
report dated 29.09.2023 submitted by the
Additional Superintendent of Police indicating
the said fact that the competent authority has
passed the order dated 07.10.2023 by recording
that as the petitioner's license is not having a
UIN as such, his license is being cancelled.

7. Placing reliance on the aforesaid
notification, the argument of learned standing
counsel is that it was the duty of the petitioner
to have obtained the UIN and to have had it
endorsed on his license and he having failed to
do so, no error has been committed by the
respondent no. 2 in cancelling the license of the
petitioner by means of the order dated
07.10.2023.

8. Responding to the same, the argument
of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
once a duty has been cast upon the licensing
and renewing authority in terms of Rules 15 &
16 of the Rules, 2016 to generate the UIN and
to upload it consequently, even if a notification
dated 22.01.2020 has been issued the same
would not resile from the fact that the duty has
been cast upon the licensing authority in terms
of the Rules, 2016 for having the UIN endorsed
at the time of renewal as specifically provided
in Rule 15 of the Rules, 2016 and thus, in case it
is the licensing authority who has failed to
discharge his duties, the burden thereof cannot
be placed upon the petitioner in order to enable
the licensing authority to cancel the license of
the petitioner.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the contesting parties and
perused the records.

10. From the arguments as raised by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the contesting parties and a perusal of
records it emerges that the petitioner was
having an arms license, the last renewal of
which took place in District - Pratapgarh on
1574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
06.06.2018 per which the license was
renewed upto 17.05.2021. Subsequent
thereto, the licensing authority vide order
impugned dated 07.10.2023 has cancelled
the license of the petitioner by observing
that in terms of the relevant notifications
and the Government orders, as the
petitioner has failed to obtain a UIN,
consequently, as no license without a UIN
can subsist subsequent to 30.06.2020, as
such, has cancelled the license of the
petitioner.

11. The question which is to be
considered by this Court as to whether the
licensing authority was empowered to
cancel the license of the petitioner on the
ground that the petitioner has failed to
obtain the UIN ?

12. For answering the said question,
the Court will have to consider the
provisions of Rules 15 & 16 of the Rules,
2016 which for the sake of convenience are
reproduced below:-

"Rule 15 - Maintenance of
records
in
electronic
format
and
consolidation of licences

(1) Every licensing authority and
the
renewing
authority
specified
in
Schedule II, while granting a license or
renewing a licence, thereof, shall enter the
data of the record locally in an electronic
format
specified
by
the
Central
Government.

(2) Every licensing authority and
the renewing authority shall also enter such
data in the NDAL system which shall
generate a unique identification number
(UIN) and with effect from the 2[30th June,
2020], any arms license without UIN shall
be considered invalid.

(3) The UIN so generated under
sub-rule (2) shall be unique for a licensee.

(4) Any existing licensee holding
multiple licences in Form III shall on or
before the 2[30th June, 2020] make an
application for grant of a single licence in
respect of all the firearms held by him
under his UIN, to the concerned licensing
authority:

Provided that where the applicant
applying a licence for restricted category of
arms or ammunition specified in Schedule I
is also a holder of a licence for permissible
category of arms or ammunition specified
in the said Schedule; or where the
applicant,
applying
for
permissible
category of arms or ammunition is also a
holder of a licence for restricted category
of arms or ammunition specified in the said
Schedule, the licensing authority concerned
shall issue a new licence for such restricted
or permissible category of arms or
ammunition, as may be applicable, under
the existing UIN of the licensee:

3[Provided further that separate
licence either in book form or in electronic
form shall be generated in case of each
licence in Form II, Form III, Form IIIA and
Form IV and in case of a licence in Form
III,
separately
for
restricted
and
permissible
categories
of
arms
and
ammunition specified in Schedule I, with an
overall ceiling of two firearms under a
single UIN.]

(5) The licensing authority on
receipt of an application from a multiple
licence holder under sub-rule (4) shall
cancel the existing multiple licences of the
applicant and issue in lieu thereof, a new
licence endorsing therein, all the existing
firearms of the said licensee.

(6) The period of validity of the
new licence so issued by the licensing
authority under sub-rule (5) shall be the
farthest period as mentioned in any of the
cancelled licences and the area validity
2 All. Hakimuddin Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1575
endorsed on the new licence shall be the
more extensive area in any of the cancelled
licences.

Rule 16 - Duty of licensing
authority under NDAL

(1) The licensing authority, while
granting or renewing a licence or at the
time of providing any allied service to any
licensee under these rules shall ensure that
the data of the transaction approved by
him, is simultaneously updated in the
electronic format locally and on the NDAL
system under its log-in ID:

Provided that the licensee shall
not be held accountable for failure on the
part of the licensing authority to update
such data in the electronic format.
(2) The licensing authority shall ensure
compliance of delivery of different services
specified in column (2) of Schedule V,
within the time specified in column (4), of
the said Schedule."

13. From a perusal of Rule 15 of the
Rules,
2016
it
emerges
that
the
responsibility of maintenance of records in
electronic format and consolidation of the
licenses has been put on the shoulders of
the licensing authority and the renewing
authority as specified in Schedule II. Rule
15, of the Rules, 2016 categorically
provides that every licensing authority and
the renewing authority while granting a
license or renewing a license thereof shall
enter the data of the record locally in an
electronic format specified by the Central
Government. Every licensing authority and the
renewing authority shall also enter such data in
the NDAL system which shall generate a UIN
and with effect from 30.06.2020, any arms
license without UIN shall be considered invalid.
Sub Rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2016
provides that the UIN so generated under subrule (2) shall be unique for a licensee. Though
sub Rule (4) of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2016
provides that an existing licensee holding
multiple licenses in Form III shall on or before
30.06.2020 make an application for grant of
single license in respect of all the firearms held
by him under his UIN yet the said sub rule
would not be attracted as it is not the case where
the petitioner is holding multiple licenses.

14. Rule 16 of the Rules, 2016 also casts a
duty on the licensing authority under NDAL
while granting or renewing a license or at the
time of providing any allied service to any
licensee under these rules to ensure that the data
of
transaction
approved
by
him
is
simultaneously updated in the electronic format
locally and on the NDAL system under its login ID. The proviso to Rule,16 of the Rules,
2016 also provides that the licensee shall not be
held accountable for failure on the part of the
licensing authority to update such data in the
electronic format.

15. Thus, from a perusal of Rules, 15 &
16 of the Rules, 2016 it clearly emerges that a
duty has been cast on the licensing or the
renewing
authority
while
generating
or
renewing a license to enter the data of the
record locally in an electronic format and to
generate the UIN.The proviso to Rule, 16 of the
Rules, 2016 categorically provides that the
licensee shall not be held accountable for failure
on the part of the licensing authority to update
the data in the electronic format.

16. Thus, it can safely be said from a
perusal of Rules, 15 & 16 of the Rules, 2016
that the duty has been cast upon the licensing or
renewing authority to ensure the generation of
the UIN and for feeding of the same on the
NDAL portal.

17. In the instant case, the competent
authority, though had renewed the license
of the petitioner on 06.06.2018 i.e after the
promulgation of the rules, 2016 which have
1576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
come into force, having been published in
the gazette, on 15.07.2016 yet it emerges
that the licensing authority failed to
discharge the duty which was entrusted
upon him for generating the UIN and for
uploading it on the NDAL portal. Merely
placing reliance on the various Government
orders that may have been issued from time
to time including the notification dated
22.01.2020, the competent authority has
cancelled the license of the petitioner by
means of the order impugned dated
07.10.2023 putting the entire burden of
generation and endorsement of the UIN on
the shoulders of the petitioner. This act on
the part of the licensing authority, as
emerges from a perusal of the order dated
07.10.2023, is clearly not countenanced in
the eyes of law and would also run foul to
the statutory provisions of Rules 15 & 16
of the Rules, 2016.

18. So far as the notification dated
22.01.2020 is concerned which has been
cited by the learned Standing counsel, a
perusal of the same would indicate that the
said notification has been issued by the
State Government addressed to all the
District Magistrates through out the State
of Uttar Pradesh in pursuance to the Rule
15 of the Rules, 2016. By the said order,
the State Government has required all the
District Magistrates, while considering the
notification issued by the Government of
India on 03.01.2020, to take adequate steps
to ensure that those valid license holders
who are not entered in the NDAL portal,
they should be entered by 29.06.2020 and
UIN be provided to them and all such license
holders who are not entered on the portal by
29.06.2020,
their
license
should
be
considered as invalid. The said order nowhere
stipulates that it is the license holders who are
required to get their UIN or would get their
details uploaded on the NDAL portal rather
the District Magistrates of all the Districts are
required to ensure the adherence of the
provisions of Rule 15 & 16 of the Rules,
2016. This order cast a duty on the licensing
and renewing authority to generate the said
data and UIN and upload the same on the
NDAL portal as such, there cannot be any
occasion for shelving the said duty on the
shoulders of the license holder and thereafter
cancelling the said license.

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, the Court is constrained to hold
that the competent authority has failed to
discharge the duty which was cast upon him
while renewing the license of the petitioner as
done on 06.06.2018 i.e for generating the
UIN and for updating the same on the NDAL
portal. The modus adopted by the licensing
authority of cancelling the license of the
petitioner is patently illegal and de hors the
Rules, 2016.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.
The
order
impugned
dated
07.10.2023, a copy of which is annexure 7 to
the writ petition is quashed. The licensing
authority is required to generate a UIN and to
upload it on the NDAL portal within a period
of four weeks from today. If the license of the
petitioner has lapsed in the interregnum it be
also extended after completion of necessary
formalities.

21. As the Court has specifically
observed of the licensing authority having
specifically shirked and not discharged the
mandatory duty which was cast upon him in
terms of Rules, 2016 and the petitioner
having been made the scapegoat of such act
on the part of the licensing authority and in
having approached this Court for the
redressal of his grievances as such, the
Court also proposes to impose exemplary
cost
on
the
respondents.
2 All. Nitesh Kumar Rastogi & Anr Vs. State of U.P & Anr.
1577

22. Accordingly, keeping in view the
judgment of the Apex Court passed in the
case of Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of
India reported in (2014) 8 SCC 470, this
Court imposes a token cost of Rs. 25,000/-
on the respondents.

23. Let the said cost be paid to the
petitioner initially by the State Government
within six weeks from today with the
liberty to recover the same from the
authority who is responsible in passing the
order impugned.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1577
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1646 of 2024

Nitesh Kumar Rastogi & Anr. ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sanandan
Kumar
Misra,
Bina
Kumari
Bajpai, Lakshmi Kant Tripathi, Rakesh
Kumar Chaudhary

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(अ) फौजदारी कानून - भारतीय दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता,
(1973) - धारा 482 - अंतर्निहित शक्ततयां - भारतीय दंड
संहिता, 1860 -
 धारा 188, 420, 427, 447 - धारा 482
का सावधानी से उपयोग - उच्च न्यायालय को इस शक्तत का
उपयोग करते समय मामले का सतिी परीक्षण निीं करना चाहिए
और यि देखना चाहिए क्रक तया दीवानी प्रकृर्त के मामले को
अपराध का रूप हदया गया िै - जिााँ पक्षों के मध्य दीवानी प्रकृर्त के
वववाद को मात्र दूसरे पक्ष पर दबाव डालने के ललए आपराधधक रंग दे
हदया जाता िै, ऐसी कायिवािी न्यार्यक प्रक्रिया का दुरूपयोग िै।
(पैरा -15,16,17)

पक्षों के बीच वििाद दीिानी प्रकृति का - प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट द्िािा
भूमम पि कब्जा किने का आिोप लगाया गया - अस्थायी तनषेधाज्ञा
आदेश पारिि - जजसके विरुद्ध मशकायिकिाट द्िािा अपील की गई
- पुमलस ने प्रकिण को दीिानी प्रकृति का बिािे हुए हस्िक्षेप किने
से इकाि कि ददया - िाजस्ि कममटयों की दो रिपोर्ट प्राथीगण के पक्ष
में - एक रिपोर्ट मशकायिकिाट के पक्ष में। (पैिा - 19)

र्नणिय: -
आपिाधधक प्रक्रिया मात्र दीिानी प्रकृति के वििाद में
प्राथीगण पि अनुधचि दबाि डालने के उद्देश्य से संजस्थि की गई।
ऐसी परिजस्थति में आपिाधधक कायटिाही का जािी िहना न्यातयक
प्रक्रिया का दुरुपयोग होगा। पक्षी के मध्य आपिाधधक प्रक्रिया
तनिस्ि की गई । आदेश में ददए गए कोई भी कथन आपिाधधक
प्रक्रिया के अलािा क्रकसी भी दीिानी या िाजस्ि प्रकृति के वििाद
के तनणटय में प्रभािी नहीं होंगे।( पैिा - 19,20)

धारा 482 के तित आवेदन स्वीकृत । (E -7)

उद्धृत मामलों की सूची: -

1. कमल मशिाजी पोकिनेकि बनाम महािाष्ट्र िाज्य औि
अन्य, (2019) 14 एससीसी 350

2. जी सागि शूिी बनाम उ०प्र० िाज्य ,(2000) 2
एससीसी 636

3. इंडडयन ऑयल कापोिेशन बनाम NEPC इंडडया
मलममर्ेड ,(2006) 6 एससीसी 736

4. गुलाम मुस्िफा बनाम कनाटर्क िाज्य ,(2023)
एससीसी online SC 603

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. प्राथीगण के विद्िान अधधिक्िा श्री
सनन्दन कुमाि ममश्रा एिं श्रीमिी बीना कुमािी