# Nazmul S/O Noor Hasan v. Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lucknow & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 566
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-24
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1004261 of 2011
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nazmul-s-o-noor-hasan-v-commissioner-lucknow-division-lucknow-anr-51440
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Arms
Act,
1959-Section
17(3)(b)-the petitioner challenges the
cancellation
of
a
firearm
license-the
District Magistrate cancelled the firearm
license citing misuse of license in criminal
activities, particulary in case crime no.
287 of 2007, where he allegedly fired at
public officials during a demolition drivethe decision was upheld by the appellate
authority-The court held that an acquittal
based on insufficient evidence or benefit
of
doubt
does
not
invalidate
the
administrative decision to revoke the
license-the decisions made after following
the prescribed legal procedure are valid,
even if subsequent acquittals occur in
related criminal cases-The petition was
dismissed, affirming the cancellation's
2 All. Nazmul S/O Noor Hasan Vs. Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lucknow & Anr.
567
legality and procedural soundness.(Para 1
to 21)

The writ petition is dismissed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
will was not proved and once the basis of
petitioner's claim has not been proved, no
finding could have been returned in favour
of petitioner even at the appellate stage.
Though the proceedings under Section 34
of the Land Revenue Act are summary in
nature, but when a document is denied,
then proper and adequate evidence has to
be adduced to prove the said document.

24. The revisional Court has also
not interfered with both the orders passed
by the authorities below. Accordingly, it
is in the aforesaid facts that this Court is
of the considered view that neither of the
authorities below have entered into the
discussion
with
regard
to
rival
contentions and nor had any discussion
made with regard to validity of the
registered will vis-a-vis unregistered
document. Had a finding been returned
with regard to validity or otherwise of the
registered will, then certainly case could
have been made out for interference by
this Court as per the exception carved out
by the coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Smt. Hadisul Nisha Vs.
Additional Commissioner (supra).

25.

It
is
in
the
aforesaid
circumstances, this Court finds itself
bound by the consistent view taken by
this Court in the case of Guridutt Vs.
State of U.P. and 8 Others - Writ - C
No.
21014
of
2021
(decided
on
21.09.2021), where this Court has held
that in such matters it is open for the
petitioner to take his/her claim before the
regular Courts.

26. In the aforesaid circumstances
this Court is not inclined to entertain
present writ petition or interfere with the
orders impugned herein. Accordingly, for
the reasons stated above, present writ
petition is dismissed.

27. However, the petitioner would
be at liberty to demonstrate her case
before the appropriate Court, if so
advised.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 566
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 1004261 of 2011

Nazmul S/O Noor Hasan ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lucknow
& Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
J.P. Narayan Vajpayee, Chhatrapal Rawat,
Dilip
Kumar
Pandey,
Praveen
Kumar
Sharma, Umesh Chanra Vishwakarma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Arms
Act,
1959-Section
17(3)(b)-the petitioner challenges the
cancellation
of
a
firearm
license-the
District Magistrate cancelled the firearm
license citing misuse of license in criminal
activities, particulary in case crime no.
287 of 2007, where he allegedly fired at
public officials during a demolition drivethe decision was upheld by the appellate
authority-The court held that an acquittal
based on insufficient evidence or benefit
of
doubt
does
not
invalidate
the
administrative decision to revoke the
license-the decisions made after following
the prescribed legal procedure are valid,
even if subsequent acquittals occur in
related criminal cases-The petition was
dismissed, affirming the cancellation's
2 All. Nazmul S/O Noor Hasan Vs. Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lucknow & Anr.
567
legality and procedural soundness.(Para 1
to 21)

The writ petition is dismissed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Rajeev Kumar @ Monu Shukla Vs St. of U.P.
& ors.. Writ C No. 31473 of 2019

 (Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur J.)

1. Heard Shri Dilip Pandey, learned
counsel for petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for the State and perused the
material available on record.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the
District Magistrate, Hardoi in exercise of
powers under Section 17 (3) of the Arms
Act, 1959 thereby cancelling the arm
licence issued in favour of the petitioner, he
further assailed the order dated 16.03.2011
passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow
Division, Lucknow thereby rejecting the
appeal of the petitioner against the order of
the District Magistrate, Lucknow.

3. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for petitioner that the petitioner
was issued an arm licence for SBBL with
Licence No. 6469 and Arm No. 158.
Subsequently, he was served with a show
cause notice on 05.06.2007 asking him to
respond as to why his licence be not
cancelled considering the fact that he has
misused his arm licence and five cases have
been registered against him, namely, (i)
Case Crime No. 287 of 2007, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 336, 332,
353 and 427 IPC, and Section 7 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, (ii) Case
Crime No. 39-A of 1999 under Section 324
IPC,(iii) Case Crime No. 20 of 2004, under
Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC, (iv)
Case Crime No. 247 of 2004, under Section
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and lastly
a case was lodged under the Goonda Act.
The petitioner duly responded to the said
notice issued by the District Magistrate,
Hardoi and submitted that the criminal
cases have been lodged against the
petitioner
are
false
and
politically
motivated and he has not misused his
weapon since the date of its issuance and
accordingly prayed for discharge of the said
notice.

4. The Licensing Authority/District
Magistrate, Hardoi by means of order dated
10.12.2010 was of the view that the
petitioner has misused his arm licence,
inasmuch as, according to the FIR, in Case
Crime No. 287 of 2007, under Sections
147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 336, 332, 353 and
427 IPC, and Section 7 of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act, it was found that
when the demolition drive was being
carried out by the officers of the Nagar
Palika,
then
the
petitioner
including
number of other persons had gathered and
attacked the public official and restrained
them from discharge of the public function
and also used his licensed weapon, which
had hit the police vehicle and had damaged
the same. It is in regard of the said offence
that the Licensing Authority was of the
view that the condition prescribed under
Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959
pertaining to the fact that wherever a case
is made out with regard to the public peace
and public safety, the Licensing Authority
is vested with the power to suspend and
revoke the licence. He further considered
the fact that there are number of cases
registered against the petitioner and there
are further allegations in Case Crime No.
39-A of 1999 in relation to the petitioner
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for illegally use of weapon, he was of the
view that the conditions for exercise of
powers under Section 17 (3) of the Arms
Act, 1959 are made out and consequently
cancelled his arm licence.

5. Against the order of cancellation of
arm licence, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow
Division, Lucknow. The appellate authority
also went through the entire record and also
contents of the criminal cases registered
against the petitioner and was of the view
that the findings recorded by the District
Magistrate, Hardoi in its order dated
10.12.2010 did not suffer from any
infirmity and consequently while rejecting
the said appeal, affirmed the findings
recorded by the Licensing Authority.

6. The petitioner while assailing both
the said orders, has submitted that the main
ground for cancellation of arm licence is
the alleged involvement of the petitioner in
Case Crime No. 287 of 2007, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 336, 332,
353 and 427 IPC, and Section 7 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act where there
was allegation against the petitioner for misuse
of weapon and fired at the public officials, who
were carried out public duties for demolition of
illegal structures. In this regard, he submitted
that the trial was conducted by the Special
Judge, (SC/ST Act), Hardoi and by means of
order dated 16.11.2013, the offences were not
established against the petitioner and he was
acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.
He submits that once the petitioner has been
acquitted by means of order dated 16.11.2013
then on this ground alone, the order of
cancellation and order of appellate authority
deserves to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that with relation to FIR in Case
Crime No. 39-A of 1999, the complainant
had turned hostile and consequently, giving
him benefit of the same, the petitioner was
acquitted. It is submitted that the remaining
cases are still pending consideration.
Learned
counsel
for
petitioner
has
submitted that once the petitioner has been
acquitted in Case Crime No. 287 of 2007 as
well as Case Crime No. 39-A of 1999 and
remaining cases are pending consideration
at the trial stage, it cannot be said that the
petitioner is a criminal minded person,
consequently no proceedings should have
been initiated under Section 17 of the Arms
Act, 1959.

8. Learned Standing Counsel for the
State on the other hand has opposed the
writ petition. He submits that undoubtedly,
it is correct that there are numbers of
judgment of this Court holding that merely
on the basis of pendency of criminal cases,
a fire arm licence cannot be cancelled. He
further submits that in the present case, the
arm licence has not been cancelled merely
on account of the pendency of the criminal
cases but because misuse of the arm licence
has provided for under Section 17 (3) (b) of
the Arms Act, 1959. He submits that
sufficient power has been vested in the
Licensing Authority in cases where he
satisfied that there is breach of security of
the public peace or public safety. The arm
licence has been clearly misused by the
petitioner and after giving due opportunity
to the licensee, he may revoke or suspend
the arms licence granted.

9. He submits that in the present case,
an FIR in Case Crime No. 287 of 2007 was
lodged relation to an incident dated
17.05.2007 where the Municipal authorities
along with officials were proceeding to
demolish the illegal structure. According to
the allegations contained therein, the
2 All. Nazmul S/O Noor Hasan Vs. Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lucknow & Anr.
569
petitioner along with several other persons
were present with their licensed weapon
and had fired upon the public official so as
to prevent them from carrying out the
public duties and demolishing the illegal
structure. It was in that incident that it has
alleged that the petitioner had fired upon
the
public
vehicle
(police
vehicle).
Considering this to be a serious infraction
in terms of the licence issued to the
petitioner, notices were issued. He further
submits that during the trial also number of
persons, who had been injured, had been
examined. He states that the evidence under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. was duly recorded by
the
police
authorities
where
also
involvement of the said incident was
verified but subsequently a different
version of the story was given by the
witnesses. Consequently, the trial court was
of the view that there was no sufficient
evidence and only benefit of doubt was
given to the petitioner as there was no
sufficient evidence to bring home the
charges levelled against him. He has also
submitted that the licence was cancelled in
2010 when only the FIR had been lodged
and the licence was cancelled after
following the due procedure. Acquittal in
criminal case would not have the effect of
nullifying the order of cancellation of arm
licence
passed
after
following
the
procedure prescribed by law.

10.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
submits that it was not a clean acquittal but
only the benefit of doubt was given to the
petitioner and consequently, it cannot be
said that the petitioner was not involved in
the
incident,
which
occurred
on
17.05.2007. He further submits that firing
upon public officials is a serious offence
and the Licensing Authority has duly
satisfied himself in this regard as would be
evident from the impugned orders and
consequently, submits that there is no
infirmity in the same.

11. He further submits that with
regard to the Case Crime No.39-A of 1999,
the complainant himself had turned hostile
and accordingly, benefit of such an
acquittal cannot be taken by the petitioner
for assailing the order of cancellation of the
arm licence.
12. I have heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the record.

13. According to the impugned order
dated 10.12.2010, there was an allegation
against the petitioner with regard to his
involvement in Case Crime No. 287 of
2007, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
323, 336, 332, 353 and 427 IPC, and
Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act. In the said case, it was alleged that the
team of officials of the Nagar Palika had
proceeded to demolish certain illegal
structures where a lot of public had
gathered including the petitioner with their
firearms. Apart from the brick backs, the
public officials were fired upon where the
petitioner is also alleged to have fired and
consequently an FIR was lodged and also
notice under Section 17 of the Arms Act,
1959 was given to the petitioner seeking his
response as to why his arm licence be not
cancelled.

14. The petitioner had objected to the
show
cause
notice
and
denied
his
involvement in the said incident and also
submitted that the allegations against the
petitioner are politically motivated. The
Licensing
Authority,
considering
the
allegations contained in Case Crime No.
287 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 149,
307, 323, 336, 332, 353 and 427 IPC, and
Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act as well as other four cases registered
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against the petitioner, was of the considered
view that permitting the petitioner to retain
the arm licence would endanger the public
peace and safety and consequently was also
of the view that there is violation of
condition prescribed under Section 17 (3)
(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 are fulfilled and
consequently proceeded to cancel the said
licence. The appellate authority has also
confirmed the findings. Considering the
arguments of learned counsel for petitioner,
this Court is of the considered case it is not
a case where the arm licence of the
petitioner has been cancelled only on the
grounds of pendency of criminal cases.

15. In the present case, there are clear
allegations of misuse of firearm licence by
the petitioner petitioner, inasmuch as, he is
said to have fired upon the public officials.
Firing upon the public officials is a serious
offence and if a satisfaction has been
recorded by the Licensing Authority, then it
would be a condition sufficient itself to
cancel the arm licence. The judgments
referred to by the petitioner questioning the
case of Rajeev Kumar alias Monu Shukla
Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ
C No. 31473 of 2019, this Court was to
ascertain as to whether the arm licence can
be cancelled in public interest or due to
pendency of the criminal case against the
petitioner only apprehension of misuse of
arm which may endanger public peace or
safety. In those cases, this Court was of the
view that none of the ground were made
out and consequently, had proceeded to set
aside the order of cancellation of the arm
licence. The facts in the present case are are
substantially at variance with the facts on
which
the
aforesaid
judgment
was
rendered.

16. In the present case there are clear
allegations against the petitioner for having
use his firearm against the public officials,
who were carrying out public duty. This
Court is of the considered view that this
allegation is substantiated and a satisfaction
is recorded that certainly provisions of
Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959
would
be
made
out
and
Licensing
Authority would be justified and competent
to pass such an order.

17. The other aspect of this case is
that the incident is said to have occurred on
17.05.2007
and
impugned
order
of
cancellation
has
been
passed
on
10.12.2010. The acquittal order has been
passed after the cancellation of the arm
licence on 16.11.2013. It is not the case of
the petitioner that unless and until the trial
is concluded, the power under Section 17
(3) of the Arms Act 1959 cannot be
exercised. The proceedings of trial are
totally on a different footing than are under
Sections 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, where
licence can be cancelled on the satisfaction
of the Licensing Authority. While exercise
powers under Section 17 (3) of the Act of
1959 a subjecting satisfaction has to be
recorded by the Licensing Authority with
regard to the existence of conditions
required for cancellation of licence as
provided in sections of Section 17 of the
Act of 1959. While during trial the Court
has to satisfy that prosecution has proved
their case beyond reasonable doubt to
record a conviction.

18. Learned counsel for petitioner has
submitted that at the relevant point of time,
the petitioner had deposited his gun before
the arms dealer. It is noticed that neither
this point was raised before the Licensing
Authority nor at the stage of appellate
authority and has been raised for the first
time before this Court in the present writ
petition. These facts were never subjected
2 All. Allahabad Bank Staff Association Vs. Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial
 Tribunal-Cum-Labo.
571
to examination by the competent authority.
This Court while exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this Court has limited jurisdiction of
examining validity of the orders passed by
the authorities. A new question of fact
cannot be entertained for the first time in
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India unless and until the
fact is uncontroverted or is of such nature
that it itself reflects in truthfulness or
sterling
quality
without
any
further
examinations and the petitioner has been
able to demonstrate cogent reasons to the
satisfaction of the Court for not adducing
before the authorities below. It is only in
the limited sphere that in very special
circumstances fresh facts can be considered
in writ petition assailing the order of
statutory appellate authorities. In the
present case, no reason has been stated for
not adducing the evidence before the
District
Magistrate
or
the
appellate
authority for deposit of the arm with the
dealer, and even the document cannot be
relied upon as the same is not a receipt
issued by the dealer. He even did not take
this plea before the trial court and hence
this piece of evidence is not reliable, and is
not of such nature or can be considered for
the first time in a writ under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India.

19. I do not subscribe to the
arguments of petitioner that unless and until
there is a conviction with regard to the
criminal case lodged against the licensee,
the arm licence cannot be cancelled. There
is no connection between exercise of power
under Section 17 (3) of the Act 1959 and
secure a conviction in the trial in relation to
the criminal case lodged against the
licensee. This Court is of the considered
view that the acquittal in the present case,
which was much subsequent to the
cancellation of the arm licence would not
have bearing about the validity of the order
of cancellation dated 10.12.2010.

20. I have gone through the order of
the Licensing Authority and have satisfied
that he has duly considered the existing
conditions for exercising the powers and
duly recorded the satisfaction in this regard.

21. In light of the above, no ground
for interference is made out. Accordingly,
the writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 571
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 1004474 of 2010

Allahabad Bank Staff Association
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial
Tribunal-Cum-Labo. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
T.B. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Gopal Kumar Srivastava, Anurag Srivastava,
Gopal Kumar Srivastava

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioner was accused of
fraudulently
claiming
Leave
Travel
Concession (LTC) by submitting bills for
canceled
tickets-following
disciplinary
proceedings, his special allowance was
withdrawn in dec. 2001-appeals made to
the appellate authority and the Central
Govt. Industrial Tribunal were rejectedThe petitioner challenged that issues on
the ground of natural justice principles
not followed and lack of detailed reasoned