# Kailash Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 867
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999-01-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31573 of 1999
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kailash-chaudhary-v-state-of-u-p-and-40025
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226- Gun
licence- Licencing Authority rejected the
application - due to lack of information
about particulars of the person for
apphrension to life- can not be rejected.

Held- Para 6

The Scheme of the Arms Act does not
contemplate that a licence of fire arm
shall be granted only when somebody
has
apprehension
of
his
life
from
someone. In this view of the matter,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the view taken by the
licensing authority, as stated above, that
since the petitioner has not mentioned
as to who are the persons from whom he
has apprehension to his life and property
and further there is no police report to
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
this effect also, therefore application of
the petitioner for grant of firearm licence
is liable to be rejected, amounts to
rejection of application of firearm licence
on wholly irrelevant consideration and it
is also submitted that in this view of the
matter, the order passed by the licensing
authority rejecting the application for
grant of firearm licence of the petitioner
deserves to be quashed and petitioner is
entitled for grant of the licence, applied
for.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Abdul Kafi V. District Magistrate, Allahabad and another 867
Kailash Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and
another, 1993 (3) ACC, 665. But the
above decision in Kailash Chaudhary's
case was not found correct in Full Bench
decision of this Court in Ranjeet Singh
and others vs. State of U.P. and another
(supra) and therefore the applicants had
no right to file protest petition on
summoning them rather they had to wait
to the stage of charge to show that no
offence was made out against them.

19. The learned Magistrate was also
not justified while recalling the order
dated 8.1.1999 on the ground that since
the case was exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, all the witnesses have
to be examined. The above observation
was probably in view of proviso to
Section 202 Cr.P.C. But the above
procedure has to be adopted in complaint
case. As held above cognizance of the
case was taken under Section 190 (1) (b)
Cr.P.C.
and
therefore
provisions
contained in proviso to Section 202
Cr.P.C. is not applicable in this case.
Therefore, the Revisional Court rightly
held that the order of the Magistrate dated
23.10,.2002 by which he recalled the
order
dated
8.1.1999
was
not
in
accordance with law.

20. The next contention of the
learned counsel for the applicants that the
Revisional Court wrongly allowed the
revision without issuing notice to the
applicants is also not supported by the
record, as the revisional order itself shows
that notices were issued to the applicants
(opposite parties to the said revision) but
despite
of
service
of
notice
none
appeared, (vide paragraph 3 of the
judgment of the Revisional Court).

21. In view of the above discussions
and observations I find that the impugned
orders as well as Criminal proceedings in
the Criminal Case are not liable to be
quashed.

22. The applicants, therefore, has no
force and is, accordingly, rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 5.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31573 of 1999

Abdul Kafi

...Petitioner
Versus
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad
and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Indra Raj Singh
Sri Islam Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226- Gun
licence- Licencing Authority rejected the
application - due to lack of information
about particulars of the person for
apphrension to life- can not be rejected.

Held- Para 6

The Scheme of the Arms Act does not
contemplate that a licence of fire arm
shall be granted only when somebody
has
apprehension
of
his
life
from
someone. In this view of the matter,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the view taken by the
licensing authority, as stated above, that
since the petitioner has not mentioned
as to who are the persons from whom he
has apprehension to his life and property
and further there is no police report to
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
this effect also, therefore application of
the petitioner for grant of firearm licence
is liable to be rejected, amounts to
rejection of application of firearm licence
on wholly irrelevant consideration and it
is also submitted that in this view of the
matter, the order passed by the licensing
authority rejecting the application for
grant of firearm licence of the petitioner
deserves to be quashed and petitioner is
entitled for grant of the licence, applied
for.

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

1. This writ petition was heard and
allowed by me vide my order dated 5th
September, 2002 for the reasons to be
recorded later on. Now here are the
reasons for allowing the aforesaid writ
petition.

2. The present petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is
directed against the order passed by the
Licensing Authority/District Magistrate,
Allahabad
dated
17th
June,
1999,
Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby
petitioner's
representation
has
been
rejected, who had applied for grant of fire
arm licence i.e. a D.B.B.L. gun despite
the reports of all the concerned authorities
in favour of petitioner for grant of licence.
It is submitted that petitioner has also
deposited the National Saving Certificate
worth Rs.5,000/- on 1st July, 1992, in this
regard. The City Magistrate, Allahabad
vide his report dated 20th July, 1992 has
also recommended for grant of licence.
However, licensing authority overruling
the aforesaid recommendation, as already
stated, vide his order dated 25th August,
1992 passed an order refusing to grant the
firearm licence of the petitioner merely on
the ground that petitioner has not stated in
his application form as to from whom
person he has danger to his life and there
is no such police report also. In this view
of the matter, the application has been
held to be not maintainable and has been
rejected.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
refusal to grant of firearm licence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the
appellate
authority.
The
appellate
authority vide its order dated 3rd July,
1995 allowed the appeal and remanded
back the matter before the licensing
authority with a direction to pass a
reasoned order. The mater remain pending
before the licensing authority when
petitioner filed writ petitioner no. 22718
of 1996 before this Court and this Court
vide its order dated 23rd July, 1996
disposed of the petition. The operative
portion of the order dated 23rd July, 1996
is reproduced below:-

"Under the facts and circumstances
of the present case, I direct that the
respondent no. 1 to dispose of the
application filed by the petitioner for
grant of the licence, by means of speaking
order, within a period of one month from
the date a certified copy of the order of
this Court is produced before him.
With these observations, the writ
petition is disposed of finally."

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction
issued by this Court, the licensing
authority vide its order dated 6th
September, 1997 reiterated his earlier
order that the petitioner has not mentioned
the necessity and justification for fire arm
and there is no such reference in the
police report also. In this view of the
matter, the application for grant of firearm
licence of the petitioner is liable to be
rejected and is hereby rejected. Thereafter
petitioner filed a representation before the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Abdul Kafi V. District Magistrate, Allahabad and another 869
licensing
authority,
which
remains
pending when petitioner filed second writ
petition before this Court being 38706 of
1997, which has been disposed of by this
Court on 28th November, 1997. The
operative portion of the order dated 28th
November, 1997 is reproduced below :-

"I direct the respondents to decide
the representation of the petitioners
within a period of three months. With
these
observations,
this
petition
is
disposed of."

5. The petitioner alongwith the
aforesaid order passed by this Court filed
a
representation
addressed
to
the
Licensing Authority/District Magistrate,
Allahabad , a copy whereof is appended
as Annexure -6 to the writ petition. The
licensing authority again rejected the
petitioner's application/representation for
grant of fire arm license on the ground
that
petitioner
has
not
filed
any
representation and therefore pursuance to
the direction of this Court, petitioner's
application is liable to be rejected as the
petitioner has reiterated the same reasons
and grounds for which the application for
grant of fire arm licence has already been
rejected. This order was passed by the
licensing authority on 17th June, 1999.
The petitioner by means of the present
writ petition has challenged the order
dated 17th June, 1999 passed by the
licensing authority with a further prayer
that a writ of mandamus be issued
directing the respondents to grant fire arm
licence to the petitioner.

6. Heard learned counsel for the
parties. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has submitted that
an application for grant of firearm licence
under the provision of Arms Act can be
refused only on the ground, which is
relevant in the context of the grant of
firearm license. The Scheme of the Arms
Act does not contemplate that a licence of
firearm shall be granted only when
somebody has apprehension to his life
from someone. In this view of the matter,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the view taken by ;the
licensing authority, as stated above, that
since the petitioner has not mentioned as
to who are the persons from whom he has
apprehension to his life and property and
further there is no police report to this
effect also, therefore application of the
petitioner for grant of firearm liocence is
liable to be rejected, amounts to rejection
of application of firearm licence on
wholly irrelevant consideration and it is
also submitted that in this view of the
matter, the order passed by the licensing
authority rejecting the application for
grant of firearm licence of the petitioner
deserves to be quashed and petitioner is
entitled for grant of the licence, applied
for.

7.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the respondents tried to
justify the order passed by licensing
authority, which has been challenged in
the present petition but, in my opinion, he
failed to substantiate and support the
reasoning given in the order. Learned
Standing Counsel also could not point out
any provision under the Arms Act on the
basis whereof the reasoning given by the
licensing authority for rejecting the
petitioner's
application for grant of
firearm licence can be justified.

8. In this view of the matter, the
order impugned in the present writ
petition refusing to grant of the firearm
licence of the petitioner on the ground
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
mentioned in the said order is not
supported by any statutory provision and
cannot
be
said
to
be
relevant
consideration on which the application of
the petitioner should be rejected. In this
view of the matter, the order dated 17th
June, 1999 is liable to be quashed and is
hereby quashed. The prayer of mandamus
prayed for by learned counsel for the
petitioner that licensing authority may be
directed to grant the firearm licence to the
petitioner cannot be granted. However, a
direction is issued to the licensing
authority to consider the petitioner's
application for grant of firearm licence in
accordance with law and not to reject the
same on the ground on which it has been
rejected by the present impugned order.
The petitioner is directed to file an
application alongwith the certified copy
of the order passed by this Court before
the licensing authority within fifteen days
from today, who shall decide the same in
accordance with law within a period three
months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order before the
licensing authority.

9. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 17th June, 1999, Annexure-7
to the writ petition is quashed. Order
accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39740 of 2002

Anuj Gupta (Minor)

...Petitioner
Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education,
Delhi and another
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.D. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri H.N. Pandey
S.C.

Central Board of Secondary Education ,
Delhi 1995- By laws 61- Revaluation of
marks- can not be made- except the
verification of marks.

Held- Para 11

In view of the provisions of Bye-law 61
and in view of the decision of the learned
Single Judge in Kshitij Singh case, it is
evident that the petitioner cannot be
granted reliefs sought for by him in the
writ petition. The petitioner can only
seek
verification
of
his
marks
as
provided in clause (i) of the Bye-law 61.
Case law discussed:
2001(3) AWC-2191
AIR 1984 SC-1543

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

1. The petitioner has filed this writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, interalia praying for
following reliefs :

"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the