# Raj Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 358
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-30
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1614 of 2023
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kumar-gautam-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51425
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Arms Act, 1959 - Section
17(3)(b) - Cancellation of Arms License -
Public Peace and Safety - Judicial Review -
Article 226 of the Constitution

The petitioner, holder of an arms license issued
in
2002
and
renewed
until
17.12.2025,
challenged the orders dated 26.03.2021 and
06.08.2022, which revoked his license and
dismissed
his
appeal,
respectively.
The
revocation was based on the petitioner's alleged
conduct during a sensitive period in 2018,
involving
spreading
communal
rumors,
instigating villagers, and disrupting public order
despite Section 144 Cr.P. being in force. The
petitioner argued that cancellation cannot be
based solely on pending criminal cases, citing
Ram Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P. (Writ-C No.
7078 of 2004). The St. countered that the
revocation was not due to pending FIRs (where
the petitioner was not named) but due to his
conduct threatening public peace and safety, as
recorded in the impugned order. Held: Section
17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, empowers the
licensing authority to revoke a license if deemed
necessary for public peace or safety. The
competent authority's order dated 26.03.2021
objectively detailed the petitioner's conduct,
including instigating communal tension and
2 All. Raj Kumar Gautam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
359
violating Section 144 Cr.P. , which justified the
revocation. The court found no perversity or
illegality in the authority's findings, which were
based on the petitioner's reply and lack of
satisfactory evidence. The scope of judicial
review under Article 226 is limited, as per N.
Banerji Vs P.R. Mukherjee (1953 SC 58), Ajaib
Singh Vs Sirhind Co-operative (1999) 6 SCC 82,
and other precedents, and does not permit
reappreciation of evidence or substitution of the
court's view for the authority's. The judgment in
Ram Pratap Singh was inapplicable, as the
revocation was not solely based on pending
criminal cases but on the petitioner's conduct.
The writ petition was dismissed, finding no
grounds for interference.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2021 had come into existence. Therefore,
before the date of marriage, the petitioners
should have complied with the provisions
of the Act, in case, they wanted to attach
sanctity/legality to the conversion, which is
now controlled and governed by the
enactment passed by UP Legislature.

19. The scheme of the Act envisages
that if conversion is done in relation to
marriage of the persons belonging to
different religions, irrespective of any past
event, which might or might not attach
sanctity to conversion, in case a marriage is
solemnized after the Act of 2021 has come
into force, i.e., after 27.11.2020 as per
Section 1 (3) of the Act, the parties have to
ensure compliance of Sections 8 and 9 of
the Act and, in such event, conversion, if
any, done in the past, may be a relevant fact
during the course of inquiry conducted by
the District Magistrate as per Sections 8
and 9 of the Act subject to satisfaction of
the District Magistrate but it, in itself,
cannot be a substantive proof of a valid
conversion so as to attach sanctity to a
marriage performed after the Act, 2021 has
come into force. Therefore, the concerned
party to a proposed inter-faith/inter-religion
marriage
has
to
comply
with
the
provisions of the Act. Hence, the
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners that since Act has come into
force in 2020-21, but conversion was
done in 2017 at Arya Samaj Mandir
and, therefore, no fresh conversion is
required, is not acceptable and is hereby
discarded.

20. In view of the above, this writ
petition stands disposed of with liberty
to the petitioners to file a fresh petition
after ensuring compliance of Sections 8
and 9 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 358
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ C No. 1614 of 2023

Raj Kumar Gautam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pramod Kumar Shukla, Ashish Kumar
Mishra, Pradeep Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Criminal Law - Arms Act, 1959 - Section
17(3)(b) - Cancellation of Arms License -
Public Peace and Safety - Judicial Review -
Article 226 of the Constitution

The petitioner, holder of an arms license issued
in
2002
and
renewed
until
17.12.2025,
challenged the orders dated 26.03.2021 and
06.08.2022, which revoked his license and
dismissed
his
appeal,
respectively.
The
revocation was based on the petitioner's alleged
conduct during a sensitive period in 2018,
involving
spreading
communal
rumors,
instigating villagers, and disrupting public order
despite Section 144 Cr.P. being in force. The
petitioner argued that cancellation cannot be
based solely on pending criminal cases, citing
Ram Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P. (Writ-C No.
7078 of 2004). The St. countered that the
revocation was not due to pending FIRs (where
the petitioner was not named) but due to his
conduct threatening public peace and safety, as
recorded in the impugned order. Held: Section
17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, empowers the
licensing authority to revoke a license if deemed
necessary for public peace or safety. The
competent authority's order dated 26.03.2021
objectively detailed the petitioner's conduct,
including instigating communal tension and
2 All. Raj Kumar Gautam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
359
violating Section 144 Cr.P. , which justified the
revocation. The court found no perversity or
illegality in the authority's findings, which were
based on the petitioner's reply and lack of
satisfactory evidence. The scope of judicial
review under Article 226 is limited, as per N.
Banerji Vs P.R. Mukherjee (1953 SC 58), Ajaib
Singh Vs Sirhind Co-operative (1999) 6 SCC 82,
and other precedents, and does not permit
reappreciation of evidence or substitution of the
court's view for the authority's. The judgment in
Ram Pratap Singh was inapplicable, as the
revocation was not solely based on pending
criminal cases but on the petitioner's conduct.
The writ petition was dismissed, finding no
grounds for interference.

Case Law Cited:

1. Ram Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P., Writ-C No.
7078 of 2004 (19.12.2022)

2. Thakur Das Yadav Vs St. of U.P., Writ-C No.
55352 of 2009 (16.07.2024)

3. N. Banerji Vs P.R. Mukherjee, 1953 SC 58

4. Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-operative Marketing
cum Processing Service Society Lt , (1999) 6
SCC 82

5. Indian Overseas Bank Vs Indian Overseas
Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union, (2000) 4
SCC 245

6. Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. Vs Mangesh
Rajaram Wagle, (2010) 2 SCC 432

7. Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF Vs
Surinder Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 244

8. U.O.I. Vs R.K. Sharma, (2001) 9 SCC 592

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Standing counsel appearing on
behalf of the State-respondents.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed
praying for the following main reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing thereby the impugned order dated
26.03.2021 and Order dated 06.08.2022
passed by opposite party no. 2 & 3 which
are annexed as Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this
writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding the
opposite party no. 2 to 4 to revoke the
suspension/revocation of the Arms License
of the petitioner forthwith.

(iii) Issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the opposite party no. 2 to 4
to release the Arms/12 bore DBBL Gun No.
19536-BE2007
Katra
Bazar,
District
Gonda which is surrendered at Police
Station Katara Bazar, District Gonda since
08.01.2022 forthwith."

3. The case set forth by the petitioner
is that he was having an arms license which
was issued to the petitioner on 17.12.2002.
The arms license has been renewed from
time to time the last renewal having been
made upto 17.12.2025.

4. It is contended that on 20.10.2018,
two FIRs have been lodged bearing Case
Crime No. 357 of 2018 & 358 of 2019
under Sections 147, 148, 332, 153-A, 295A, 504 & 506 I.P.C and Section 7 Criminal
Law Amendment Act, 1972 against ten
named persons and 40 to 50 unknown
persons. However, the petitioner was not
named.

5. Another FIR bearing Case Crime
No. 359 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148,
307, 332, 333, 336, 153-A, 323, 325, 504,
427 I.P.C read with Section 7 Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1972 and Section 3 (1) of
the
Public
Properties
Act,
1984,
respectively had been lodged against the 35
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
named persons and 31 unknown persons. In
the said FIR also, the petitioner was not
named in the said FIR.

6. The further contention is that the
authorities of Police Station Katra Bazar
recommended
the
suspension
and
cancellation of the arms license of the
petitioner. In pursuance thereof, a notice
was
issued to
which
the
petitioner
submitted his reply but the competent
authority vide order dated 26.03.2021
revoked the arms license of the petitioner.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an
appeal which has been rejected vide order
dated 06.08.2022, a copy of which is
annexure 2 to the writ petition. Being
aggrieved by both the orders, the instant
writ petition has been filed.

7. The argument of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that it is settled
proposition of law that an arms license
cannot be cancelled on the basis of
pendency of criminal proceedings.

8. Reliance has also been placed on
a
judgment
of
this
Court
dated
19.12.2022 passed in Writ-C No. 7078 of
2004 Inre; Ram Pratap Singh Vs. State
of U.P and Ors wherein the said
proposition of law has been laid down.

9. On the other hand, learned
Standing counsel on the basis of averments
contained in the counter affidavit argues
that the arms license of the petitioner has
not been cancelled solely on the ground of
pendency of criminal proceedings against
him. Learned Standing counsel states that
the name of the petitioner does not find
place in any of the FIRs which have
lodged. However, in the instant case, the
competent
authority
has
categorically
recorded the conduct of the petitioner as
finds place in the order impugned dated
26.03.2021 which has prevailed upon the
authority to cancel the arms license of the
petitioner upon a specific finding that
continuance of the arms license with the
petitioner would be detrimental to public
peace and public safety. The said order has
been upheld with the dismissal of the
appeal vide order dated 06.08.2022 and
there is no illegality or infirmity in the
same. It is thus prayed that the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.

10. Heard the learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the contesting
parties and perused the records.

11. From a perusal of records it
emerges that the petitioner was having an
arms license issued to him in the year 2002
which has been renewed upto 17.12.2025.
The arms license has been cancelled after
due notice to the petitioner on account of
the reasons which emerge from a perusal of
the order dated 26.03.2021.

12. It is the specific case of the
learned counsel for the petitioner, to which
there cannot be any dispute, that the
arms license cannot be cancelled merely
on the ground of pendency of criminal
case(s).

13. However, a perusal of the order
impugned would indicate that it is not
only the criminal cases which have been
considered rather the competent authority
has categorically recorded the conduct of
the petitioner which has led to the
authority to come to the conclusion that
continuance of the arms license with the
petitioner would be detrimental for the
security of the public peace and for
public safety and hence he has cancelled
the said license.
2 All. Raj Kumar Gautam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
361

14. In order to appreciate the order of
the competent authority dated 26.03.2021
the Court may have to consider the
provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (
hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1959")
which empowers the authority concerned to
cancel the license.

15. In this regard, Section 17 of the
Act, 1959 is reproduced below:-

"17. Variation, suspension and
revocation of licences.

(1)The licensing authority may
vary the conditions subject to which a
licence has been granted except such of
them as have been prescribed and may for
that purpose require the licence holder by
notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to
it within such time as may be specified in
the notice.

(2)The licensing authority may,
on the application of the holder of a
licence, also vary the conditions of the
licence except such of them as have been
prescribed.

(3)The licensing authority may by
order in writing suspend a licence for such
period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence

(a)if the licensing authority is
satisfied that the holder of the licence is
prohibited by this Act or by any other law
for the time being in force, from acquiring,
having in his possession or carrying any
arms or ammunition, or is of unsound
mind, or is for any reason unfit for a
licence under this Act; or

(b)if
the
licensing
authority
deems it necessary for the security of the
public peace or for public safety to suspend
or revoke the licence; or

(c)if the licence was obtained by
the suppression of material information or
on the basis of wrong information provided
by the holder of the licence or any other
person on his behalf at the time of applying
for it; or(

d)if any of the conditions of the
licence has been contravened; or

(e)if the holder of the licence has
failed to comply with a notice under subsection (1) requiring him to deliver-up the
licence.

(4)The licensing authority may
also revoke a licence on the application of
the holder thereof.

(5)Where the licensing authority
makes an order varying a licence under
sub-section (1) or an order suspending or
revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it
shall record in writing the reasons therefor
and furnish to the holder of the licence 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.

(6)The authority to whom the
licensing authority is subordinate may by
order in writing suspend or revoke a
licence on any ground on which it may be
suspended or revoked by the licensing
authority; and the foregoing provisions of
this section shall, as far as may be, apply in
relation to the suspension or revocation of
a licence by such authority.

(7)A Court convicting the holder
of a licence of any offence under this Act or
the rules made thereunder may also
suspend or revoke the licence:Provided that
if the conviction is set aside on appeal or
otherwise, the suspension or revocation
shall become void.

(8) An order of suspension or
revocation under sub-section (7) may also
be made by an Appellate Court or by the
HighCourt when exercising its powers of
revision.

(9) The Central Government may,
by order in the Official Gazette, suspend or
revoke or direct any licensing authority to
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
suspend or revoke all or any licences
granted under this Act throughout India or
any part thereof.

(10)
On
the
suspension
or
revocation of a licence under this section
the holder thereof shall without delay
surrender the licence to the authority by
whom it has been suspended or revoked or
to such other authority as may be specified
in this behalf in the order of suspension or
revocation."

16. From a perusal of Section 17 of
the Act, 1959 it emerges that the licensing
authority has been given the power to vary
the conditions subject to which a license
has been granted. The licensing authority,
on an application of a holder of a license
can also vary the condition of the license.
The licensing authority has also been given
the power under Sub section (3) of Section
17 of the Act, 1959 to suspend a license for
such period as it thinks fit or revoke a
license, where the licensing authority is
satisfied that the holder of the license is
prohibited by the Act, 1959 or by any other
law from acquiring or having in his
possession or carrying any arms or
ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is
for any reason unfit for a license and if the
licensing authority deems it necessary for
the security of the public peace or for
public safety to suspend or revoke the
license or license has been obtained by the
suppression of material information or on
the basis of wrong information provided by
the holder of the license or if any of the
conditions
of
the
license
has
been
contravened or if the holder of the license
has failed to comply with a notice requiring
him to deliver up the license.

17. In the case in hand, it emerges that
the licensing authority has categorically
recorded in his order dated 26.03.2021,
after considering the reply which has been
filed by the petitioner, that on 15.09.2018,
an order under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C
had been issued in the area which is a
sensitive area . The petitioner has been
charged of having actively spread rumors
and having stood with his personal weapon
along with various other persons and
having instigated the villagers and stopped
the traffic movement on the State highway
and continued to remain on the spot from
12 mid night till 3 A.M. On 20.10.2018
during the religious festival he spread
communal tension with the result that the
District Magistrate himself went to the spot
thrice at 8 PM,10 PM and 11.30 PM but
despite the request made by the District
Magistrate for removal of the crowd and he
having informed the petitioner about
Section 144 being in force, the petitioner
continued to stand at the spot and also
instigated the crowd. This conduct of the
petitioner has been found to be of such
nature as being threat to public peace and
for public safety which entailed the
competent authority to cancel the arms
license.

18. For the sake of convenience, the
relevant portion of the impugned order
dated 26.03.2021 indicating the conduct of
the petitioner is being reproduced below:-

प्रवपक्षी को िोप्रटस प्रिगषत कर यह आरोप लगाया गया
था प्रक जिपद गोण्डा में प्रवगत इप्रतहास रेखांप्रकत करता है प्रक
दशहरा/दुगाषपूजा के अवसर पर प्रह्दू मुप्रस्लम र्ाप्रमषक आर्ार पर
सामिदाप्रयक तिाव रहता है। प्रवगत में जिपद के प्रवप्रि्ि िागों में
सामिदाप्रयक आर्ार पर उत्प्ि वैमिस्य के िलते प्रहंसक घटिायें हुई
हैं। इप्रतहास को देखते हुए वर्ष 2018 में समप्ि होिे वाले दशहरा,
दुगाषपूजा व दुगाषपूजा के उपरा्त मूप्रतष प्रवसषजि के कायषिम शाप्र्तपूणष
ढंग से समपाप्रदत हो इसके प्रलए प्रजलाप्रर्कारी के आदेश संख्या
372/जे०ए० (र्ारा-144)/2018 प्रदिांक 15.09.2018 के
माध्यम से समपूणष क्षेत्र में िारतीय दण्ड संप्रहता की र्ारा 144 के
तहत आप्रर्काररक घोर्णा की गयी थी। आपको जिपद का एक
2 All. Raj Kumar Gautam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
363
समरा्त िागररक मािते हुए व आपकी सामाप्रजक प्रिया-कलापो की
साि सुथरी र्मषप्रिपेक्ष छप्रव के सापेक्ष आपको प्रजला मप्रजस्रेट
कायाषलय से प्रदिांक 10.12.2002 को शस्त्र अिुज्ञप्रि संख्या
342 स्वीकृत व प्रिगषत प्रकया गया था। एक समरा्त और अच्छे
िागररक होिे के िाते आपसे यह अपेक्षा थी प्रक इस िकार की
सामिदाप्रयक तिाव की घटिा के समय आप िशासि का सहयोग
करते हुए लोक िशाप्र्त क्षुब्र् करिे वाले तत्वों के प्रवरुद्ध जिमत
तैयार करते व लोक िशाप्र्त ििाये रखिे का ियास करते, पर्तु
आप अपिे िागररक कतषव्यों के प्रिवषहि मे पूणषतया प्रविल रहे और
आपिे शासि व िशासि का साथ देिे के स्थाि पर कोरी अिवाहें
िैलािे वालों को रोकिे के स्थाि पर अिवाह िैलािे में िढिढ़ कर
योगदाि प्रकया और लोक िशाप्र्त क्षुब्र् करिे हेतु ि केवल स्वयं
अपिे व्यप्रक्तगत हप्रथयार सप्रहत खडे हुए वरि समस्त ग्रामवाप्रसयों को
िी उकसाते हुए उ्हें ग्राम से गुजरिे वाले स्टेट हाईवे के प्रकिारे खडा
करिे हेतु िेररत प्रकया व रात 12.00 िजे से 03.00 िजे तक
वहीं िीड के साथ स्वयं मौजूद रहे। प्रदिांक 20.10.2018 को
ग्राम िरॉव में स्थाप्रपत दुगाषपूजा की मूप्रतष प्रवसषजि को लेकर आप ि
केवल आवेप्रशत हुए वरि आपिे अपिे अडोस-पडोस तथा समस्त
ग्रामवाप्रसयों को सामिदाप्रयक आर्ार पर उकसाया। तत्कालीि प्रजला
मप्रजस्रेट द्वारा लगातार 3 िार 08 िजे राप्रत्र 10 िजे राप्रत्र
व11.30 िजे राप्रत्र स्वयं उपप्रस्थत होकर आपको व आपके साथ
एकत्र जि समूह, जो लाढी डण्डे से लैस थे, (जो प्रक र्ारा 144 के
तहत पूणष िप्रतिप्र्र्त था) को वहााँ से हटिे का अिुरोर् करिे के
िावजूद आप लगातार ि केवल वहााँ ििे रहे िप्रल्क उस आिोप्रशत
िीड की मोिाषि्दी मे अपिे असलहा सप्रहत िढ़ िढ़कर िाग लेते
हुए िेतृत्व िदाि प्रकया गया। इस दौराि आपिे अपिे शस्त्र के साथ
मौके पर मौजूद रहकर िीड को िडकािे व उकसािे का कायष प्रकया,
जो एक अच्छे िागररक होिे के िाते आपसे अपेप्रक्षत िहीं था और
जो र्ारा 144 सी०आर०पी०सी० का उल्लघंि व 188 आईपीसी
के अ्तगषत दण्डिीय अपरार् है व आम्र्स एक्ट की र्ारा 30 के
प्रवरुद्ध था। उपरोक्त आरोपों के समि्र् में प्रवपक्षी द्वारा कोई
संतोर्जिक उत्तर, साक्ष्य व गवाह िस्तुत िहीं प्रकया गया है प्रजससे
यह प्रसद्ध हो सके प्रक िोप्रटस मे उप्रल्लप्रखत आरोप सत्य िहीं है।
पत्रावली पर िोप्रटस वापस प्रलए जािे का कोई कारण प्रवद्यमाि िहीं
है। िोप्रटस पुप्रि प्रकये जािे योग्य है। आयुर् अप्रर्प्रियम 1959 की
र्ारा "17(3)(ख) मे िाप्रवर्ाि है प्रक लोक शाप्र्त की सुरक्षा के
प्रलए या लोक-क्षेम की अप्रिवायषता के सापेक्ष-(घ) अिुज्ञप्रि की
शतो मे से प्रकसी का िी उल्लंघि प्रकया गया हो। अिुज्ञप्रि को
प्रिलप्रमित या िप्रतसंह्रत प्रकया जा सकता है।"

पत्रावली पर उपलब्र् अप्रिलेखीय साक्ष्यों से स्पि है
प्रक प्रवपक्षी स्वयं के सुरक्षाथष िदाि प्रकये ये शस्त्र अिुज्ञप्रि के शतो
का उल्लंघि प्रकया गया है, जो लोक िशाप्र्त ििाये रखिे के प्रवरुद्ध
है। प्रकसी िी अिुज्ञप्रि र्ारक से इस िकार का आिरण ि तो
वांछिीय है और ि ही प्रवप्रर् सममत। अतएव अद्योहस्ताक्षरी इस
प्रिष्कर्ष पर पहुाँिता है प्रक अिुज्ञापी उपरोक्त को स्वीकृत प्रकया गया
अिुज्ञप्रि ििे रहिे योग्य िहीं है और ्यायप्रहत मे व िृहत्तर सामाप्रजक
समरसता व लोक िशाप्र्त ििाये रखिे हेतु ऐसा प्रकया जािा
अप्रिवायष है।

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid
conduct of the petitioner, the competent
authority while exercising the power as
vested with him under the provisions of
Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act, 1959 has
revoked the license of the petitioner.

20. Interestingly a bald averment has
been made in paragraph 15 of the writ
petition of the petitioner not being present
on the spot. However, there is no averment
in the petition as to why the authorities
concerned would specifically name the
petitioner
while
passing
the
order
impugned. No malafides have been alleged
in the writ petition nor any officer has been
impleaded by name. Moreover, the order
impugned itself indicates that the order was
being passed after considering the reply of
the petitioner which was not found to be
satisfactory and no witness or evidence was
produced by petitioner in this regard. Thus,
the order impugned indicates objective
satisfaction of the authority concerned
while cancelling the arms license of the
petitioner. Thus, the Court has no option
but to treat the version as has been
indicated by the authorities in the order
dated 26.03.2021 to be correct.

21. So far as the judgment of this
Court in the case of Ram Pratap Singh
(supra) is concerned, the Court may only
indicate
that
there
cannot
be
any
cancellation of the arms license on account
of pendency of the criminal case. There
cannot be any quarrel to the aforesaid
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proposition of law as enunciated by this
Court even on earlier occasion. However,
as already indicated above, this is not the
case in which arms license of the petitioner
has been cancelled solely on the ground of
pendency of criminal cases or lodging of
FIR rather the entire conduct of the
petitioner has been gone into objectively
and given in detail in the order impugned
dated 26.03.2021.

22. Moreover, the judgment of Ram
Pratap Singh (supra) would have no
applicability inasmuch as the authority
concerned has not cancelled the license of
the petitioner merely on the ground of
pendency of criminal case rather perusal of
the order impugned would indicate that the
competent authority has applied his mind to
the reply filed by the petitioner meaning
thereby that there has been objective
consideration of all facts by the authority
concerned and after considering the same,
the authority has decided that continuance
of arms license with the petitioner would
cause threat to public peace and security
and considering this aspect, the arms
license of the petitioner has been revoked.
These all are the findings of fact and in the
absence of anything to show that the
aforesaid inference drawn by the competent
authority is per se illegal, the Court does
not find any reason to interfere with the
same as if sitting in appeal, since the scope
of judicial review in such matters in
exercise of power under Article 226/227 of
Constitution of India is very limited and
narrow.

23. This aspect of the matter has been
considered by this Court in the case of
Thakur Das Yadav Vs. State of U.P and
Ors passed in Writ-C No, 55352 of 2009
decided on 16.07.2024. For the sake of
convenience, the relevant observations of
this Court in the case of Thakur Das
Yadav (supra) are reproduced below:-

8. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R.
Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 the Court said:

"Unless there was any grave
miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation
of law calling for intervention, it is not for
the High Court under articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution to interfere."

14. In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind
Co-opeative Marketing cum Processing
Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82, the
Court has held that there is no justification
for the High Court to substitute its view for
the opinion of the Authorities/ Courts below
as the same is not permissible in
proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution.

16. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs.
Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen
Workers' Union (2000) 4 SCC 245, the
Court observed that it is impermissible for
the Writ Court to reappreciate evidence
liberally and drawing conclusions on its
own on pure questions of fact for the reason
that
it
is
not
exercising
appellate
jurisdiction over the awards passed by
Tribunal. The findings of fact recorded by
the fact finding authority duly constituted
for the purpose ordinarily should be
considered to have become final. The same
cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of
having based on materials or evidence not
sufficient or credible in the opinion of Writ
Court to warrant those findings. At any
rate, as long as they are based upon some
material which are relevant for the purpose
no interference is called for. Even on the
ground that there is yet another view which
can reasonably and possibly be taken the
High Court can not interfere.

22. In Abdul Razak (D) through
Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle
and others (2010) 2 SCC 432, Court
2 All. M/S Sahbhav Engineering Ltd. Ahmadabad Vs. U.P. State M.S.M.E. Facilitation
 Council, Kanpur & Ors.
365
reminded that while exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 or 227, High Courts
should not act as if they are exercising an
appellate jurisdiction.

24.
In
Commandant,
22nd
Battalion, CRPF and others Vs. Surinder
Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 244, Apex Court
referring to its earlier decision in Union of
India Vs. R.K. Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 592
observed that only in an extreme case,
where on the face of it there is perversity or
irrationality, there can be judicial review
under Articles 226 or 227.

24. Accordingly, keeping in view the
aforesaid discussion more particularly
seeing the conduct of the petitioner as
stands
recorded
in
the
order
dated
26.03.2021, no case for interference is
made out with the orders impugned.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 365
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 3774 of 2023

M/S Sahbhav Engineering Ltd. Ahmadabad
 ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. State M.S.M.E. Facilitation Council,
Kanpur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mohit Sharma, Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:

Civil Law - Micro, Small and Medium
Enterprises
Development
Act,
2006
(MSMED
Act)
-
Sections
18,
19
-
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Sections 34 & 36 - Writ Jurisdiction - Article
226/227 of the Constitution - Maintainability of
Writ Petition Against Arbitral Award

The petitioner, M/s Sahbhav Engineering Lt , a
construction company registered under the
MSMED Act, 2006, challenged an arbitral award
dated 23.03.2021 passed by the U.P. St. MSME
Facilitation Council, Kanpur, in a dispute with
respondent No. 3, M/s Hightech Concrete Lt ,
over the supply of RCC pipes. The petitioner,
who participated initially but did not appear in
later arbitration proceedings due to the Covid19 pandemic, learned of the award only upon
receiving a recovery notice on 17.11.2022. The
petitioner sought to quash the award via a writ
petition under Article 226/227. The respondents
argued that the writ was not maintainable due
to the availability of an alternative remedy
under Section 19 of the MSMED Act read with
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, and that arbitral awards between
private parties are not amenable to writ
jurisdiction. Held: As per Bhaven Construction
Vs Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Lt (2022)
1 SCC 75, writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227
should not be invoked when a statutory remedy
exists under the Arbitration Act, except in cases
of exceptional rarity or clear bad faith, neither of
which was established here. Section 19 of the
MSMED Act mandates that challenges to arbitral
awards be made under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act, requiring a 75% deposit of the
awarded amount. Section 36 further stipulates
that unassailed awards become enforceable as
court decrees after the limitation period expires,
which had lapsed in this case. The dispute being
private
in
nature,
and
with
execution
proceedings pending where objections could be
raised, the writ petition was not maintainable.
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit,
with liberty to the petitioner to pursue
objections in execution proceedings.

Case Law Cited:
1. Bhaven Construction Vs Sardar Sarovar
Narmada Nigam Lt , (2022) 1 SCC 75

2. Nivedita Sharma Vs Cellular Operators
Association of India, (2011) 14 SCC 337

3. L. Chandra Kumar Vs U.O.I., (1997) 3 SCC
261