# Jagdamba Prasad Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1039
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-09-29
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1606 of 2008
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani, K.N. Pandey
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagdamba-prasad-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41721
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 226-Dismissal
from service-without holding inquiry-on
allegation
of
wrong
calculation
of
interest on award of compensationpetitioner of appellant being lowest
employee if committed any error-could
not be tressed by Ahalmad and SLOsubsequent withdrawal of large amount
due to fraud of another employees of
land acquisition Depott-appellant can
not be punished with dismissal-neither
disciplinary
authority,
nor
appellant
authority nor Hon'ble Single Judge tried
to find out the correct fact dismissal seta-side with all consequential benefits.

Held: Para 27

The anxiety of the Court to decide the
cases quickly sometimes leads to gross
injustice to the persons, who approach
the Court giving all the required facts. In
the present case, the District Magistrate,
the Commissioner and thereafter learned
Single Judge did not care to look into the
facts of the case, in which no charge of
embezzlement
was
alleged
or
established. The petitioner serving as
Amin at the lowest level was found to
have made incorrect calculation, which
could have been made by any body by
way of a bonafide mistake and could be
corrected by the officer making payment.
He was punished in the matter of a
greater fraud played on the record
subsequently by Shri Ram Dawar, the
employees in the office of Special Land
Acquisition Officer, and in which he was
not involved.

## Text

3 All] Jagdamba Prasad Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1039
of the government order does not stand
defeated.

10. For the reasons stated above,
we give liberty to the petitioner to lay his
claim alongwith a certified copy of this
order before the District Judge, Bahraich,
who would consider the same and act
accordingly.

11. With the aforesaid clarification,
the writ petition is disposed of finally,
accordingly.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N. PANDEY, J.

Special Appeal No. 1606 of 2008

Jagdamba Prasad Singh
 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.K. Mishra
Sri S.K. Mishra
Sri Sanjeev Singh
Sri Vinay Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri J.K. Tiwari
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Dismissal
from service-without holding inquiry-on
allegation
of
wrong
calculation
of
interest on award of compensationpetitioner of appellant being lowest
employee if committed any error-could
not be tressed by Ahalmad and SLOsubsequent withdrawal of large amount
due to fraud of another employees of
land acquisition Depott-appellant can
not be punished with dismissal-neither
disciplinary
authority,
nor
appellant
authority nor Hon'ble Single Judge tried
to find out the correct fact dismissal seta-side with all consequential benefits.

Held: Para 27

The anxiety of the Court to decide the
cases quickly sometimes leads to gross
injustice to the persons, who approach
the Court giving all the required facts. In
the present case, the District Magistrate,
the Commissioner and thereafter learned
Single Judge did not care to look into the
facts of the case, in which no charge of
embezzlement
was
alleged
or
established. The petitioner serving as
Amin at the lowest level was found to
have made incorrect calculation, which
could have been made by any body by
way of a bonafide mistake and could be
corrected by the officer making payment.
He was punished in the matter of a
greater fraud played on the record
subsequently by Shri Ram Dawar, the
employees in the office of Special Land
Acquisition Officer, and in which he was
not involved.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. We have heard Shri S.K. Mishra
appearing for the petitioner-appellant. Shri
J.K. Tiwari, Standing Counsel appears for
the State respondents.

2.

The
petitioner-appellant-a
confirmed Amin holding a regular post was
dismissed from service three years before
he was to retire on the charges, that he had
wrongly calculated interest of Rs.37,823.71
payable
towards
compensation
for
acquisition of land under the Land
Acquisition Act to its owner. His appeal
was dismissed after this Court issued a writ
of mandamus to decide the matter. By this
Special Appeal he has challenged the order
of learned Single Judge dated 30.9.2008,
and the orders of his dismissal dated
1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
28.6.2001, by the District Magistrate,
Jaunpur and the appellate order dated
19.8.2002 by the Commissioner, Varanasi
under the U.P. Government Servants
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the
writ petition by a short order as follows:

"Hon. Rajiv Sharma, J.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

Petitioner has preferred the instant
writ
petition
against
the
order
of
punishment of termination of service
interalia on the ground that the punishment
which has been awarded to the petitioner
terminating his services is too harsh, but he
could not point out any irregularity in the
conduct of the enquiry or any illegality in
the orders passed by the Disciplinary
Authority. The Apex Court in the case of
Anil Mishra vs. Union of India and others,
(2008) 7 SCC 732 has held that scope of
judicial
review
in
the
matter
of
Departmental proceedings is limited and
the Courts could not sit as an appellate
authority.

In view of the above, I do not find any
illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.
Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dated: 30.9.08

Sd/- Rajiv Sharma, J."

4. Brief facts giving rise to this writ
petition are that Shri Jagdamba Prasad
Singh petitioner-appellant was serving as a
confirmed Amin on regular basis in the
office of Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jaunpur. The land in plot No. 138 area .83
acres of one Tilakdhari Prajapati was
acquired by the State Government for 220
KVA, Electricity Sub Station at Village
Muradganj, Jaunpur, for which he was paid
compensation of Rs. 20,025.61 by the Land
Acquisition Officer, Jaunpur on 16.8.1984,
vide his award dated 29.5.1985 of Rs.
2,97,507.58. The land owner filed a
reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Case No.
68/1985) decided by the Additional District
Judge, Jaunpur on 31.5.1988. An appeal
filed by State against the order of
Additional District Judge, Eighth dated
16.8.84 was dismissed on 18.7.1992. The
amount of compensation was substantially
enhanced. The land owner filed an
Execution Case No. 6/1996 and was paid an
amount of Rs.2,99,727.37 as compensation
on 22.3.1997.

5. One Shri Ram Dawar Yadav filed
an application on 5.2.1998 on the basis of a
power of attorney dated 29.5.1997, seeking
further payment of Rs. 2, 46, 177.57 for
acquisition of the same land. The amount
was paid over to him in Execution Case No.
6 of 1996, on behalf of Shri Tilakdhari
Prajapati on the basis of power of attorney.
When the fraud was detected, a first
information report was lodged by Shri
Mohan Lal son of Tilakdhari Prajapati
against Shri Ram Dawar Yadav; Shri Devi
Prasad Upadhyay,SLAO office, Jaunpur;
Shri Om Shanker Srivastava, Clerk in the
office of SLAO on 8.11.1999 registering
Case Crime No. 751 of 1999 under Sections
419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 218, 120B IPC
Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur.
On the basis of the complaint, a preliminary
enquiry was initiated by the District
Magistrate and was conducted by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate. The Sub Divisional
Magistrate in his report dated 8.4.2000
found the allegations made against Shri
3 All] Jagdamba Prasad Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1041
Ram Dawar Yadav; Shri Om Shanker and
Shri Devi Prasad Upadhyay,SLAO of
interpolation of Execution Case No. 5 to 6
of 1996 in which the payment was given all
over again to Shri Ram Dawar Yadav. The
petitioner was not found involved in the
fraud. In this report the Sub Divisional
Magistrate also observed, to the effect that
Shri Tilakdhari Prajapati the land owner in
the main execution case was paid by a
calculation mistake an excess amount
towards interest. The petitioner-appellant
had prepared a note of payment of enhanced
compensation in which he had, instead of
deducting Rs.20,025.61 already paid to the
land owner in the calculation of the amount
on the rate fixed by the Additional District
Judge, deducted the amount at the end of
the calculation, by which some amount was
paid to the original land owner in excess
towards the interest.

6. The Sub Divisional Magistrate
observed in his report dated 8.4.2000 that
the payment made to Shri Ram Dawar
Yadav on the power of attorney of Shri
Tilakdhari Prajapati of Rs. 2, 46, 177.57
was wrong and illegal and that the amount
should be recovered from Shri Ram Dawar
Yadav and that the departmental enquiry
should be initiated against the employees,
who were guilty, namely Shri Om Shanker
Srivastava (Ahalmad), and Hari Shanker
Yadav (Ahalmad/Accounts Clerk).

7. The District Magistrate considered
the report and while directing recovery from
Shri Ram Dawar Yadav, instructed the
Additional District Magistrate (Finance and
Revenue) to seek explanation from the then
Special Land Acquisition Officer Shri B.M.
Singh. The Additional District Magistrate
asked the Sub Divisional Magistrate to
submit an enquiry report. The Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Badlapur, in his
report dated 5.6.2000 after narrating the
facts of enhancement of compensation and
payment of the enhanced compensation to
the land owner, found that Shri Tilakdhari
Prajapati has executed a registered power of
attorney in favour of Shri Ram Dawar
Yadav for receiving the amount. Shri Ram
Dawar Yadav forged the document by
changing the number of the execution case
from 5/1996 to 6/1996 and made an
application for payment of enhanced
compensation on which the amount was
paid over to him all over again without
verifying that the earlier execution case was
disposed of after paying the enhanced
compensation.

8. In the criminal case the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur had clearly
observed that the Special Land Acquisition
Officer was not involved in the case and
that the fraud was played by Shri Ram
Dawar Yadav, Shri Tilakdhari Prajapati and
Shri Devi Prasad. He found that Shri Ganga
and Shri Basant Lal Amins had prepared a
separate report on 17.12.1998 and got
permission from the then Special Land
Acquisition Officer for payment to Shri
Ram Dawar Yadav holding power of
attorney of Shri Tilakdhari Prajapati. There
was no budget for the amount. The amount
was paid from the PLA account and thus
Shri Basant Lal Amin was responsible for
payment.

9. The Sub Divisional Magistrate
mentioned in one of the paragraph that in
the earlier calculation also the amount paid
to the land owner of Rs.20,025.61 on
16.8.1984 should have been adjusted from
the total amount worked after the enhanced
rate fixed by the Additional District Judge
and thereafter the interest at 15% should
have been worked. In this calculation Shri
Jagdamba
Prasad
Singh,
Amin
(the
1042 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
petitioner-appellant) was guilty of making
wrong calculations by which an amount of
Rs.37,823.71 was earlier paid in excess to
the land owner.

10. The District Magistrate, on the
basis of the report, apart from taking action
against other employees, prepared a charge
sheet against the petitioner on June 13,
2000. In this charge sheet the petitioner was
charged only with making a wrong
calculation in respect of the first payment of
enhanced compensation to the land owner
of an amount of Rs.2,46,177.97 to Shri
Tilakdhari Prajapati (land owner). In the
report of Shri Ram Kewal Tiwari (SDO,
Badlapur dated 5.6.2000) the calculation of
15% interest at Rs.37,823.71 was added for
the period from 16.8.1984 to 22.3.1997 of a
total of Rs.4596/- and the enquiry report of
Shri S.P. Singh, Deputy Collector, Jaunpur
dated 10.3.2000, and the power of attorney
of Shri Tilakdhari Prajapati were proposed
to be relied upon as documents in the
departmental enquiry in proof of charges.

11. The petitioner took up a defence
that the calculation made by him as Amin of
the enhanced compensation after the
judgment of the Additional District Judge
was not final. It was only a proposed
calculation for the purpose of drawing the
amount, which was required to be verified
by the Ahalmad and thereafter by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer before the
payment was made. In any case he had
calculated the amount in accordance with
the prescribed standard and had not
calculated the amount of interest of 538
days from 29.5.1982 to October, 1996,
giving benefit to the State. The petitioner
denied that the charge was made out of
over-payment against him.

12. In the enquiry report the petitioner
was found to be guilty of wrong calculation
of the amount. The District Magistrate in his
show cause notice dated 8.2.2001 given to
the petitioner, alleged that since the
petitioner is guilty of making wrong
calculation of the amount of Rs. 37,823.71
and since the charge is of embezzlement
and is of serious nature, a major penalty is
proposed to be imposed upon him.

13. The petitioner submitted a reply to
the show cause notice and reiterated that he
was not the person responsible, nor had the
authority to pay the amount. He had simply
made
a
calculation
of
enhanced
compensation, after it was increased by the
reference court, for which no standards are
prescribed by any orders laying down any
procedure. The proposals were made on the
earlier instructions of the concerned Land
Acquisition Officer, or his Ahalmad and
that the final calculation is made by the
Ahalmad, and the Special Land Acquisition
Officer. If the calculation was wrong, the
Ahalmad, Accounts Officer and thereafter
the Special Land Acquisition Officer were
required to correct, it before preparing the
cheque
for
payment.
The
petitioner,
however, stated that in fact in the estimated
interest the land owner was not paid 160
days interest from 14.10.1996 to 22.3.1997.

14. The District Magistrate by his
order dated 28.6.2001 agreed with the
report of the enquiry officer and concluded
that the charged officer has in connivance
with the parties made a wrong calculation
for payment of higher amount illegally to
land owner Tilakdhari Prajapati and has
caused loss to the revenue, which is a
misconduct under C.C.S. Rules, 1955 and
calls for a major penalty. He passed orders
of major penalty on 28.6.2001, of removing
the petitioner from service.
3 All] Jagdamba Prasad Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1043

15. In the appeal before the
Commissioner
of
the
Division,
the
petitioner once again reiterated that he was
not responsible for making the higher
payment. He had only calculated the interest
on the note sheets, which were required to
be checked up by the Ahalmad, Accounts
Officer and thereafter by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. He also pleaded that
Shri Basant Lal the amin responsible for the
fraud in making the entire amount paid all
over again to the person holding power of
attorney by manipulating the execution case
and was reinstated by the Finance and
Revenue Officer, Jaunpur on 1.9.2001 in
pursuance to the order of the Chairman,
Board of Revenue dated 3.7.2001.

16. Learned counsel for petitioner has
also brought on record the order of this
Court dated 18.2.2005 allowing the writ
petition filed by Shri Hari Shanker Yadav,
Accounts Officer, who had prepared and
paid over the amount to Shri Ram Dawar
Yadav on the basis of the power of attorney,
which started the enquiry in which the
petitioner was charge sheeted. The Writ
Petition No. 2898/2001 Hari Shanker
Yadav vs. District Magistrate, Jaunpur and
others was allowed on 18.2.2005, on the
ground
that
adequate
and
sufficient
opportunity of hearing was not given to the
petitioner. He was not allowed to lead
evidence, cross examination to witnesses
and to examine documentary evidence of
the department.

17. The appeal filed by the petitioner
was dismissed by the Commissioner,
Varanasi Region, Varanasi on 19.8.2002
without considering the grounds raised by
the petitioner. The appellate authority has
referred
to
the
grounds
but
has
mechanically
without
considering
the
defence of the petitioner concluded that the
petitioner has caused loss to the revenue and
has not satisfactorily denied the charges
levelled against him.

18. It is submitted by learned
counsel for petitioner that all the
arguments were raised before learned
Single Judge, but that without considering
the submissions, the writ petition was
dismissed by picking up only one ground
from his argument that on the charges,
even if it was found proved, the
punishment was too harsh. Learned Single
Judge has not considered the facts of the
case and the grounds raised in the writ
petition in deciding the matter.

19 We have considered the
submissions and perused the entire record
including the preliminary reports, the
reply given by the petitioner, the enquiry
report, the order of District Magistrate,
the grounds of appeal, the appellate order
and find that learned Single Judge has not
considered the grounds and has decided
the writ petition casually by a short order,
without giving good and sufficient
reasons. In fact he did not consider the
merits of the case at all.

20. The enquiry was initiated, into
the charge on a complaint made by the
son of the land owner, alleging that his
father was 72 year's old; he was hard of
hearing and since his mother was also not
keeping well, and his brother was not
educated, Shri Devi Prasad, Advocate was
engaged. His father executed a power of
attorney in favour of Shri Ram Dawar
Yadav for receiving the amount. He was
informed, after the death of his mother
and brother, as well as Shri Devi Prasad
Upadhyay,Advocate died that some fraud
has been played. He enquired about the
payment
of
compensation.
He
was
1044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
informed by Shri Ratnakar Shukla,
Advocate, that Shri Ram Dawar Yadav
has been paid the amount. He was advised
to get the power of attorney annulled on
which firstly he got the power of attorney
cancelled by making application in the
office of Sub Registrar (Sadar) Jaunpur on
7.10.1999. Thereafter when he came to
Jaunpur from Surat (Gujarat), where he is
working on a loom in Shiv Silk Company
Ltd., on the enquiries made by him from
the record, he found that Ram Dawar had
manipulated the power of attorney by
changing the case number and with the
connivance of clerk Shri Hari Shanker
Yadav and Shri Om Shankar Srivastava
and had received Rs. 2, 46, 177.97 from
the Special Land Acquisition Officer on
19.2.1998. On the enquiries made from
the
office
of
Additional
District
Magistrate, he found that after changing
the number of the execution case he made
an application to the District Judge for
transfer of the case. Since the payment
was not made, he got a recovery
certificate issued from the Court of
Additional District Judge, VIIIth, Jaunpur
and got the amount transferred with the
influence of Shri Hari Shanker Yadav and
Shri Om Shanker Yadav to his account.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer did
not issue any notice to the petitioner's
father or his advocate Shri Devi Prasad
Upadhyay and sent a report regarding
payment six months later. The FIR does
not disclose, but proceeds on the basis
that his father did not receive the amount
of enhanced compensation. He requested
for taking action against the guilty
persons.

21. In the fact finding enquiry it was
found that the fraud was played on the
record by Shri Ram Dawar Yadav along
with Shri Basant Lal Amin and Shri Hari
Shankar Yadav. During the course of
enquiry, it was found that at the time of
calculation of the revised amount to be
paid a wrong calculation was made by the
petitioner. In the report dated 8.4.2000 of
the
Deputy
Collector,
Jaunpur,
the
amount calculated by the petitioner is
given as follows:-

"Rate per acre

 96,296.30

0.83 acre

 77,037.20

Soletiam charge 30%
 23,111.16

Total

 1, 00, 148.66

12% Addl. (440 days)
 11,144.01

15% interest (5308 days)
 1, 08, 460.61

Deduction of the amount previously made

 20,025.61

Amount payable
 1, 99, 727.37"

22. In the report and thereafter in the
preliminary enquiry report dated 5.6.2000
on the directions of the District Magistrate,
it was reported that at the time of making
first calculation as above the amount of
Rs.20,025.61, already paid in the year
1984, to the land owner, was required to be
deducted from the total amount excluding
solatiam before calculating the interest.
The wrong method of calculation resulted
into over calculation of interest of 4596
days on Rs.20,025.61 at 15% by the
petitioner at Rs.37,823.71.

23. Admittedly the petitioner was not
the authority to make final calculations, to
draw the amount and make the payment.
As a lowest officer in the rung, the
petitioner
was
required
to
make
3 All] Jagdamba Prasad Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1045
preliminary calculations. The calculations
were thereafter required to be checked by
the Ahalmad, Accounts Officer and finally
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
before the compensation was actually paid.
The fraud was played subsequently by Shri
Ram Dawar Yadav alongwith Shri Om
Shankar and Shri Hari Shanker in the
office of Special Land Acquisition Officer
by which an amount of Rs.2, 46, 177.97
was paid to the person holding power of
attorney and by changing the number of
the execution case.

24. The record clearly demonstrates
that the petitioner was neither responsible
for making final calculations nor payment
of the amount and that he had no concern
with the fraud played upon by Shri Ram
Dawar Yadav the power of attorney holder
with other employees.

25. The petitioner had pleaded all
these facts before the District Magistrate as
well as the appellate authority. It appears
that they had no time to go through the
record, and without looking into the facts
they found a scapegoat and punished the
petitioner by removing him from service.
They did not even care to find out whether
the amount calculated by the petitioner was
actually paid to the land owner, and
whether there was any allegation against
the petitioner for having misappropriated
the amount for concluding that the State
had suffered loss. The District Magistrate
did not even wait for the conclusion of the
criminal case and failed to notice that the
other employees, who were involved in the
fraud played subsequently on record, were
either reinstated or the orders of their
dismissal were set aside by this Court.

26. We find that the petitioner was
not the person responsible for making final
calculations for drawing the amount, and
for making payment. He had simply made
calculations, which were required to be
checked by the Ahalmad and the Accounts
Officer and thereafter re-checked by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer before
the payment was made to the land owner.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer was
let off in the preliminary enquiry for
having made false payment to Shri Ram
Dawar Yadav. Only his clerk was found
responsible. The calculation made by the
petitioner, at the first instance in favour of
the land owner was referred to in the
preliminary enquiry, as a passing reference
for incorrect calculation, by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate and thereafter by the
District Magistrate as a ground for
levelling charges against the petitioner.

27. The anxiety of the Court to
decide the cases quickly sometimes leads
to gross injustice to the persons, who
approach the Court giving all the required
facts. In the present case, the District
Magistrate,
the
Commissioner
and
thereafter learned Single Judge did not care
to look into the facts of the case, in which
no charge of embezzlement was alleged or
established. The petitioner serving as Amin
at the lowest level was found to have made
incorrect calculation, which could have
been made by any body by way of a
bonafide mistake and could be corrected
by the officer making payment. He was
punished in the matter of a greater fraud
played on the record subsequently by Shri
Ram Dawar, the employees in the office of
Special Land Acquisition Officer, and in
which he was not involved.

28. We, therefore, find it just and
proper to allow the Special Appeal and
quash the orders of the District Magistrate
dated 28.6.2001 removing the petitioner
1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
from
service;
the
order
of
the
Commissioner,
Varanasi
Division,
Varanasi dated 19.8.2002 allowing the
appeal and the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 30.9.2008 dismissing the writ
petition. The petitioner was to retire in the
year 2003. He shall be treated to be in
service till the date of his retirement and
shall be paid the entire arrears of salary
upto date of his retirement and the entire
retiral benefits to be calculated, and paid to
him within four months from the date a
certified copy of the order is produced in
the office of District Magistrate, Jaunpur.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.10.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Misc. Single No. 2264 of 2007

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Lucknow and another

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vivek Manishi Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

Arms Act 195, Section 17-Cancellation of
license of non Prohibited fire Arms-on
pertext of Public interest-nowhere such
ground provided in statutory provision,-
even appeal rejected by no speaking
order-held
illegal
arbitrary-right
to
possess fire Arm with right to life
protection under Art 21 of constitutioncan not denied on filing ground.

Held: Para 18

A notice may be taken of the fact that for
any reason whatsoever, the crime rate is
rising day by day. The Government is not
in a position to provide security to each
and every person individually. Right to
possess arms is statutory right but right
to life and liberty is a fundamental right
guaranteed
by
Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India. Corollary to it, it is
citizen's right to possess fire arms for
their personal safety and to save their
family from miscreants. It is often said
that ordinarily in a civilized society, only
civilized persons require arms licence for
their safety and security and not the
criminals.
Of
course,
in
case
the
Government feels that arms licences are
abused for oblique motive or criminal
activities, then appropriate measures
may be adopted to check such malpractice. But arms licence should not be
suspended
in
a
routine
manner
mechanically,
without
application
of
mind and keeping in view the letter and
spirit of Section 17 of the Arms Act.

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

1. Heard Sri Vivek Manishi Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of present writ petition,
the impugned orders dated 21.12.2005
and 14.09.2006 passed by the respondent
no.1
i.e.
Commissioner,
Lucknow
Division, Lucknow and order dated
28.05.2003 passed by respondent no. 2,
District Magistrate, Sitapur are under
challenge.

3. Facts in brief as submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are that
the petitioner was holder of licence No.
798 Double Barrel Gun, granted by the
licensing authority/District Magistrate,
Sitapur.

4.

On
23.01.2003,
petitioner
received a show-cause-notice issued by