# Radhey Shyam Maurya v. State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 787
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-14
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sunita Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/radhey-shyam-maurya-v-state-of-u-p-others-42156
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226cancellation of Fire Arm license-on
ground pendency of certain criminal
cases against petitioner-no material
produced to establish misuse of Fire
Arm-mere pendency of criminal case
can not be ground for revocation of
license.

Held: Para 18

It is well settled that mere fact that
some reports had been lodged against
the petitioner would not establish the
"necessary connection with security of
the public peace or public safety".
Therefore, in view of the settled law
unless there is some other report or
material, only initiation of the criminal
cases against the petitioner cannot be
a ground to sustain the order of
revocation of arms licence.
Case law discussed:
2011 (74) ACC140; 1978 AWC 122; 2011
(74) ACC 304; 2010 (3) JIC 630; 2004 (2)
JIC 239 (All); 2002 (1) JIC 501 (All); 2011
(1) JIC 417 (All); 2011 (73) ACC 846; 2005
(3) 774 (All)
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

## Text

2 All] Radhey Shyam Maurya V. State of U.P. and others
787
employee is continuously facing
financial
distress
and
hardship
occasioned
by
death
of
deceased
employee of corporation and whether
the family can not be relieved from such
financial distress and hardship without
offering compassionate appointment to
the applicant, therefore, the impugned
order dated 27th January 2006 passed
by
Assistant
General
Manager,
contained
in
Annexure
S.A.-1
of
Amendment Application and also as
Annexure
C.A.-2
to
the
counter
affidavit
cannot
be
sustained.
Accordingly
the
same
is
hereby
quashed.

14. The Authority concerned is
directed
to
consider
the
case
of
petitioner
on
merit
and
while
considering so the competent authority
shall examine as to whether the family
of deceased employee continues to be
under financial distress and hardship
and the family of deceased employee
cannot be relieved from such financial
hardship
and
distress
unless
the
compassionate appointment is offered to
the petitioner. It is needless to say that
while
taking
such
decision
the
competent authority shall pass reasoned
and speaking order. Such exercise shall
be completed within a period of two
months from the date of production of
certified copy of the order passed by
this court before competent authority.

15.

With
the
aforesaid
observations
and
directions,
writ
petition succeeds and is allowed to the
extent indicated herein before.
--------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 57380 of 2009

Radhey Shyam Maurya
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Ram
Sri M.P. Yadav
Sri Harendra Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226cancellation of Fire Arm license-on
ground pendency of certain criminal
cases against petitioner-no material
produced to establish misuse of Fire
Arm-mere pendency of criminal case
can not be ground for revocation of
license.

Held: Para 18

It is well settled that mere fact that
some reports had been lodged against
the petitioner would not establish the
"necessary connection with security of
the public peace or public safety".
Therefore, in view of the settled law
unless there is some other report or
material, only initiation of the criminal
cases against the petitioner cannot be
a ground to sustain the order of
revocation of arms licence.
Case law discussed:
2011 (74) ACC140; 1978 AWC 122; 2011
(74) ACC 304; 2010 (3) JIC 630; 2004 (2)
JIC 239 (All); 2002 (1) JIC 501 (All); 2011
(1) JIC 417 (All); 2011 (73) ACC 846; 2005
(3) 774 (All)
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Shri M.P. Yadav, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents.

2. The present writ petition has
been filed challenging the order dated
6.2.2009
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate Mau, whereby firearm licence
of the petitioner has been cancelled.

3. Petitioner preferred an appeal
against
the
order
of
the
District
Magistrate, which was also rejected by
the order dated 3.9.2009.

4. Petitioner is licencee of 315 Bore
rifle bearing number 06280 and 32 Bore
revolver. The show cause notice dated
8.5.2008 has been served upon the
petitioner and the petitioner submitted
his
explanation
denying
all
the
allegations made therein.

5. The case of the petitioner is that
he is contractor of Central Storage
Corporation and also a member of
Kshettra Panchayat. During contract-ship
some antisocial elements have opened
fire upon him on 9.5.1993. As a result of
which he lodged First Information
Report under section 307 I.P.C. and after
trial accused were convicted for five
years rigorous imprisonment with fine.
Because of enmity against the petitioner
in the locality, licence for rifle and
revolver is necessary for safety and
security of his life and property.

6. Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that in the case crime no. 55 of
2008 under sections 188 I.P.C and case
crime no. 56 of 2008 under sections 147,
148, 149, 353, 332, 504 and 506 I.P.C.
and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act,
apart from the petitioner, seven other
persons were also named and show cause
notices have been issued against them on
15.3.2008.

7. The cases of these seven persons
whose names have been mentioned in
paragraph-16 of the petition, notices
dated 15.3.2008 has been cancelled and
their arms licence have been restored
vide separate orders dated 25.2.2009
passed by the District Magistrate. The
copies of the orders in cases of seven
persons namely Kasif son of Imtiyaj Ali,
Tauqir Ahmad s/o Maqbool Ahmad,
Ansar Ahmad s/o Ashfaq Ahmad, Arvind
Singh s/o Mahendra Nath Singh, Shakeel
Haider s/o late Hasan Haider, Zakir
Husain s/o Safat Husain, Kamata Ram
s/o Kuber Ram have been annexed as
annexures- 9 to 15 to the writ petition. In
all these matters finding has been
recorded by the District Magistrate that
there is nothing on record to show that
they or any other person has misused
their licensed firearms. In the cases of
these persons District Magistrate in its
order dated 22.5.2009 has recorded the
finding that the criminal case registered
against them is pending before the
competent court. He further concluded
that as per law laid down by this court,
pendency of a criminal case can not be a
ground for cancelling the firearm licence.
It has also been recorded that no other
criminal case has been registered against
these persons and as such there is no
justification for cancelling the firearm
licence of the seven persons whose
names have been mentioned in the case.

8. Counsel for the petitioner
submits that copy of the orders dated
2 All] Radhey Shyam Maurya V. State of U.P. and others
789
22.5.2009
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate, Ghazipur restoring the arms
licence of other persons who were coaccused in case crime no. 56/2008, and
55/2008
were
placed
before
the
Commissioner,
Azamgarh
Division,
Azamgarh but the Commissioner had
dismissed the appeal without taking into
consideration the said order passed in
favour of other co-accused. On the other
hand, the Commissioner simply affirmed
the order of the District Magistrate dated
6.2.2009 and concluded that as the
criminal cases have been registered
against the petitioner, he cannot be
allowed to retain the firearms as it would
be against public interest.

9. Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that there is no finding of the
District Magistrate that petitioner has
misused the licenced firearm and there is
no allegation of criminal history against
the petitioner except the three cases in
which he was falsely implicated by the
Police of Police Station Cantt. District
Lucknow. Petitioner was arrested and
has been released on bail. The allegation
levelled
against
the
petitioner
are
politically motivated and Administrative
Authorities with ulterior motive under
the pressure of local political leader had
cancelled the firearms licence of the
petitioner without any lawful cause. The
Commissioner,
Azamgarh,
Division
Azamgarh, committed illegality and
acted arbitrarily in overlooking the
orders passed by the District Magistrate,
Ghaziabad, whereby he has restored arms
licence of other accused persons, who
were prosecuted along with petitioner.
The dismissal of the appeal of the
petitioner is totally unjustified and the
orders passed by the authorities cannot
be sustained.

10. Learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgements of
this court in 2011 (74) ACC 140(Ashish
Tripathi Vs. State of U.P.), 1978 AWC
122(Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. District
Magistrate, Basti) (D.B.); 2011 (74)
ACC 304(HiraMani Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and another); 2010 (3) JIC 630
(All) (L.B) (Satish Singh Vs. District
Magistrate, Sultanpur and others);
2004 (2) JIC 239 (All) (Ishwar @
Bhuri Vs. State of U.P. & Others) ;
and 2002 (1) JIC 501(All) (Iftikhar
Khan Vs. State of U.P. & others) and
submitted that the mere involvement of
licensee in criminal case cannot be made
the basis for coming to the conclusion
that continuance of his licence would
affect public peace and security.

11. Repelling the submissions of
the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned standing counsel vehemently
argued that the petitioner is a man having
criminal history and is a member of
Mafia gang. On 24.2.2008 at about 19.45
hours, petitioner was caught at Mohanlal
Ganj crossing near Lucknow along with
twenty members of the gang. Criminal
cases no. 55/08, 56/08 and 75/08 were
registered against the petitioner on
24.2.2008
at
police
station
Cantt.,
Lucknow. The Senior Superintendent of
Police, Lucknow has sent his report
dated
13.3.2009
to
the
District
Magistrate, Mau, along with report of
Incharge Police station Cantt., Lucknow
on 5.3.2009. The said reports have been
annexed along with counter affidavit.

12. Learned Standing Counsel
submits that petitioner is a hardcore
criminal and there is every apprehension
of breach of public peace and such
person cannot be allowed to retain the
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
firearms. Mere release of the petitioner
on bail does not mean that petitioner has
been absolved from the charges levelled
against him. Learned Standing Counsel
drawn
attention
of
the
court
to
paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit,
where it has been stated that licensed
arms of the petitioner was misused by
him and other members of the gang
which is apparent from the reports dated
13.3.2008 and 5.3.2008 of the Senior
Superintendent of Police and Incharge
police
station
Cantt.
Lucknow,
respectively.

13. Learned Standing Counsel
placed reliance upon the judgement,
2011 (1) JIC 417, (All) Rajeswar Singh
Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others)
and 2011(73) ACC 846(Ram Sanehi
Vs. Commissioner Lucknow, Division,
Lucknow and others).Learned standing
counsel also placed reliance on the Full
Bench judgement of this court in
Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of
U.P. and others) and Gaya Din Vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in
2005(3) JIC 774 (All).

14. Placing reliance upon these
judgements, learned standing counsel
submits that the assessment of the
administrative authorities with regard to
grant of licence, or cancellation of
licence already granted should not be
interfered ordinarily by this Court in
exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction
unless same is so illegal or arbitrary so as
to prick the conscious of the court.

15. In the present case, considering
the conduct of the petitioner and his
association with antisocial elements, the
decision taken by the District Magistrate
and the appellate authority should be
given its proper weightage and no
interference be made.

16. Learned counsel for the
petitioner drawn the attention of the
court to the reply given by the petitioner
to paragraph -5 of the counter affidavit,
in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder affidavit,
wherein it has been categorically stated
that there is no mention of any other
incident in the reports dated 13.3.2009
and 5.3.2009 annexed with counter
affidavit, in which petitioner has misused
the firearms. The said reports only speak
of three cases having been registered on
the same day over the alleged one
incident.
Hence
the
averments
of
paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit are
totally false and incorrect in which it has
been stated that licensed firearm of the
petitioner was being misused by him and
other members of the criminal gang.

17.

Having
considered
the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and perusal of records, it is
clear that licence of the petitioner has
been cancelled by the District Magistrate
, Mau by order dated 6.2.2009 on the
ground of arrest of the petitioner made
on
22.2.2008
and
three
cases
as
mentioned above had been registered
against him. It is clear from the order of
the District Magistrate and the reports of
the S.S.P. and Incharge Police Station
Cantt. Lucknow dated 13.3.2008 and
5.3.2008 that apart from three cases there
is no reference of any other criminal case
registered against him. There is no
material on record to indicate that
petitioner has been involved in any other
criminal case or licensed firearms of the
petitioner has been misused by him or
any other person. The finding recorded
by the District Magistrate that the
2 All] C/M, N.A.S. Inter College Meerut and another V. State of U.P. and others
791
petitioner is man of criminal mentality is
based on no material on record.

18. It is well settled that mere fact
that some reports had been lodged
against the petitioner would not establish
the "necessary connection with security
of the public peace or public safety".
Therefore, in view of the settled law
unless there is some other report or
material, only initiation of the criminal
cases against the petitioner cannot be a
ground to sustain the order of revocation
of arms licence.

19. Petitioner has made out a case
for setting aside the order of cancelling
his firearm licence as well as order of
appellate authority. The order dated
6.2.2009
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate, Mau and order of the
Commissioner,
Azamgarh
Division,
Azamgarh dated 3.9.2008 are hereby
quashed .

20. The writ petition is allowed.

21. However, the Court is not
aware of the fact whether the petitioner
has been involved thereafter in any other
criminal activities or that he is desirable
or a fit person to be allowed to possess
the firearms.

22. For the aforesaid reason , the
District Magistrate, Mau will consider
the matter afresh in the light of Section
14 of the Arms Act 1959 and consider
the conduct of the petitioner subsequent
to the year 2009 and pass a fresh order as
regards to the firearm licence to be held
by the petitioner within three months
from the date a certified copy of this
order is produced before him.

23. The release of the firearms of
the petitioner shall depend upon the fresh
order to be passed by the District
Magistrate /Licencing Authority.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59814 of 2008

C/M, N.A.S. Inter College Meerut &
another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nitin Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri V.K.Singh

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226selection of Principal-Inter college aided
institution-vacancy of principal notified
1995-penal
of
selected
candidate
prepared
on
15.04.1997-by
G.O.
17.04.1997 implementation of select list
stayed considering pending SLP before
Supreme
Court-ultimately
validity
of
provision
of
Section
9,
10,
11of
Commission
Act
1984
upheld-senior
most selected candidate refused to joinDIOS posted R-4 being place at serial no.
2-challenge made on ground life of
select list exhausted after one year on
refusal of topmost in merit list-held-
after joining on resignation or death
such plea available but where topmost in
merit not joined-list still holds goodpetition dismissed.

Held: Para 15

In my opinion, since the select list of
1997 still holds good on the non-joining
of candidate at serial No. 1 of the said