# Krishna Mohan Srivastava v. State of U. P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 480
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-11-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35360 of 2003
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-mohan-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40904
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Arms Act-Section-14-Refusal to grant
arm
licence-No
reason
assigned
by
District Magistrate-only reason disclosed
for refusal that the application not
contains any reason for grant of licenceheld-order of refusal on the face of
record itself suffer from error of law by
quashing the impugned order-direction
issued for fresh consideration.

Held: Para 9

In view of the above, the order passed
by the District Magistrate, Allahabad
refusing to grant Arm's license to the
petitioner suffers from error of law
apparent on the face of record and the
order passed by the Appellate authority
affirming the same was also passed
without application of mind, though the
Appellate authority mentioned in its
order
that
the
petitioner
is
a
businessman and requires an Arm's
license for protection of his life and
property.

## Text

480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
the State Government in its order dated
11.2.2007 and
(b) if it is found by the competent
authority that there is a chance of the
misuse of the weapon, an appropriate
order in writing is required to be
passed by the competent authority
for the deposit of the fire arms.
(c) The order of the deposit of the
weapon made by the competent
authority
in writing should be
communicated to the licence holder.
(d) The directions contained aforesaid
will apply not only for this election
but for all elections.

19. A certified copy of this order
shall be made available to the parties on
payment of usual charges within four days
from today. The registry is also directed
to supply a certified copy of this judgment
to Sri J.K. Khanna, the learned Standing
Counsel within the same period, who
shall immediately forward it to the Chief
Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh,
for necessary communication to all the
authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh,
for immediate compliance.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35360 of 2003

Krishna Mohan Srivastava
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U. P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.K. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Arms Act-Section-14-Refusal to grant
arm
licence-No
reason
assigned
by
District Magistrate-only reason disclosed
for refusal that the application not
contains any reason for grant of licenceheld-order of refusal on the face of
record itself suffer from error of law by
quashing the impugned order-direction
issued for fresh consideration.

Held: Para 9

In view of the above, the order passed
by the District Magistrate, Allahabad
refusing to grant Arm's license to the
petitioner suffers from error of law
apparent on the face of record and the
order passed by the Appellate authority
affirming the same was also passed
without application of mind, though the
Appellate authority mentioned in its
order
that
the
petitioner
is
a
businessman and requires an Arm's
license for protection of his life and
property.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava. J.)

1. This writ petition is directed
against the order dated 9.10.2002, passed
by the District Magistrate, Allahabad and
the order dated 4.3.2003, passed by the
Commissioner,
Allahabad
Division,
Allahabad in Appeal affirming the order
passed by the District Magistrate refusing
to grant Arm's license to the petitioner.

2. Inspite of the order dated
4.10.2006 passed by this Court, neither
any counter affidavit has been filed by the
State nor original application of petitioner
has been produced before the Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2 All] Krishna Mohan Srivastava V. State of U.P. and others
481
3. The petitioner applied for grant of
an Arm's licence of D.B.B.L. Gun on
22.8.2001. The District Magistrate did not
pass any order, hence petitioner filed Writ
Petition No.22881 of 2002. This C6urt by
an order dated 24.5.2002 directed the
District Magistrate, Allahabad to pass
appropriate
orders
on
petitioner's
application within six months' and in
compliance of the said order, the District
Magistrate by an order dated 9.10.2002
rejected the application of petitioner for
grant of Arm's license. An appeal
preferred against the said order was also
dismissed on 4.3.2003. These two orders
have been impugned in the present writ
petition.

4. Duly considered arguments of
learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials on record.

5. From perusal of the record, it
clearly
transpires
that
the
District
Magistrate while passing the order did not
consider petitioner's application alongwith
the report of the Police authorities and
other materials on record.

6. Section 14(2) of the Arms Act
makes it clear that in case the licensing
authority refuses to grant the license, he
shall record reasons in writing 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.

7. In the present case, no reasons
have been recorded in the order of the
District Magistrate. The order passed by
tile District Magistrate makes it clear that
he admitted that Police authorities have
submitted a report in favour of petitioner,
but rejected the application of petitioner
on the ground that application does not
contain any reason for grant of Arm's
license.

8. This Court on 4.10.2006 directed
learned Standing Counsel to produce the
original Application of petitioner, but
neither original application was produced
nor averments made by the petitioner in
the writ petition were controverted by
filing a counter affidavit. In the facts of
the case, this Court is of the view that the
District Magistrate was duty bound to
consider report submitted by the Police
authorities
alongwith
Application
of
petitioner and other materials on record.
Uncontroverted averments made in the
writ petition are that petitioner is a
reputed person and requires an Arm's
license for safety of his life and security
of his property. The Appellate authority in
its order also mentioned that the petitioner
is a business-man. It is also borne out
from the uncontroverted averments made
in the writ petition that petitioner has right
to live with dignity and for protection
against criminals and the antisocial
elements of the area and, therefore, he
requires
an
arm's
license.
These
averments made in the writ petition have
not been denied by the State by filing
counter affidavit: The matter relates to the
City of Allahabad, but the State did not
care to challenge or controvert the
averments made in the writ petition
denying
these
facts
and
as
such
petitioner's requirement of an Arm's
license to protect his life and property is
established. The In the present scenario
where life and property of the civilized
citizens of the society is under threat from
criminals and antisocial elements and the
law and order situation prevailing in the
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
State also makes out a case for grant of an
Arm's license to the petitioner.

9. In view of the above, the order
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad refusing to grant Arm's license
to the petitioner suffers from error of law
apparent on the face of record and the
order passed by the Appellate authority
affirming the same was also passed
without application of mind, though the
Appellate authority mentioned in its order
that the petitioner is a businessman and
requires an Arm's license for protection of
his life and property.

10. In view of the discussions made
above, writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The impugned orders dated
9.10.2002 and 4.3.2002 passed by the
District Magistrate, Allahabad and the
Commissioner,
Allahabad
Division,
Allahabad are hereby quashed. The matter
is
remanded
back
to
the
District
Magistrate, Allahabad to pass a fresh
order in accordance with law in the light
of the observations made by this Court in
this judgment.

11. No order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58112 of 2005

Sidheswar Mishra

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajesh Nath Tripathi
Sri S.K. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ranjit Saxena
Sri R.D. Khare

U.P. State Electricity Board Employees
(Retirement)
Regulations
1975Regulation 2 (b) and 2 (C) (i)-2ACompulsory Retirement-based on uncommunicated
bad
entry-more
than
three decades-can not be sufficient to
assume that public interest requires the
retirement of petitioner compulsorilyheld-arbitrary not based on any relevant
materials-quashed.

Held: Para 6

Assuming that there is one bad entry of
1998-99 but that has also not been
communicated to him. It is aptly said
one swallow does not bring a spring. One
bad entry in more than three decades of
service cannot be said to be sufficient to
hold that the public interest requires the
compulsory retirement of the petitioner.
From the service record, it is also
apparent that throughout his service, the
integrity of the petitioner was never
doubted. The counsel for the respondent
has failed to point out any material
which could show that the conduct or
the method of working of the petitioner
was adversely telling up on the efficiency
of the unit where he was working or of
the corporation at large. Therefore, the
exercise
of
power
of
compulsory
retirement appears to be arbitrary and
not based on any relevant material.
Therefore, it has to be quashed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Ranjeet Saxena for the
respondent Corporation.