# Rajesh Singh Sengar v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 985
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-03
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 29566 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajesh-singh-sengar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48350
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Arms Act, 1959 - Rule 17 -
Arms Rules, 2016 - Schedule II - Rules 5,
17 - Arms Rules 1962 - Rule 54 -Renewal
of Arms License - In case of change in
permanent residence to the district where
renewal is sought, the licencing authority
of such district would hence forward
become
responsible
for
watching
all
future renewals of licence and shall inform
the original issuing authority accordingly.
It is also provided that the procedure is to
be repeated on each subsequent occasion
of renewal of licence. (Para 16)

In the present case, once the permanent
address of the petitioner had shifted from State
of Haryana to State of Uttar Pradesh, he was
required to make an application before the
District Magistrate Unnao for renewal of his
arms licence in that particular district as per
Rule 54 of Rules, 1962. It is apparent that
petitioner's application for renewal dated 12th
January, 2015 was rightly made to the District
Magistrate, Unnao in terms of Schedule II of
Rules 1962. The renewal thereafter by the
District Magistrate, Unnao and intimating the
same
to
District
Magistrate
Sirsa
were
completely in accordance with Rule 54 of the
said Rules. (Para 17, 22)

It is also evident that petitioner had submitted
his application for renewal vide letter dated 15th
March, 2021, well before its expiry and the
same was required to be considered and
decided by the District Magistrate Unnao and
not the District Magistrate Sirsa in view of Rules
54 of the Rules 1962 and Rule 5 and 17 of the
Rules 2016. The mere fact that petitioner's
issuing authority has been indicated in
N.D.A.L. Portal as Sirsa, Haryana is an
error by opposite parties themselves, the
benefit of which cannot be extended to
them to the detriment of petitioner. It was
the duty of opposite parties to have
updated their records once petitioner's
licence stood renewed by the District
Magistrate Unnao. The fact whether District
Magistrate,
Unnao
intimated
the
District
Magistrate
Sirsa
regarding
renewal
of
petitioner's licence in 2015 and subsequently is
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also an inter-departmental procedure with which
petitioner has no concern. The opposite parties
by means of affidavit filed in support of
exemption from personal appearance have also
brought on record order dated 22nd February,
2022 whereby petitioner's arms licence has
been renewed by the District Magistrate Unnao
from 26th March, 2021 till 25th March, 2026 but
the same has been made subject to decision of
this petition and orders to be passed by the
District Magistrate Sirsa. (Para 23, 24)

It is apparent that the renewal of petitioner's
arms licence after 2015 by the District
Magistrate Unnao was very well in accordance
with law. (Para 25)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present petition challenges order dated
22.03.2021,
rejecting
petitioner's
application for registration/renewal of
arms license at his present address.

## Text

3 All. Rajesh Singh Sengar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
985
to file his personal affidavit disclosing the
time frame within which payment of due
amount would be made, the respondents
made the payment and filed an affidavit to
the said effect. It is pointed out that the
case of the petitioner is on a similar footing
inasmuch as approval for making payment
was granted in respect of petitioner as also
M/s Saubhagya Industries Ltd. (supra) by
the same order dated 5.3.2021 issued by
A.D.M., Finance and Revenue, Meerut.

15. We are of considered opinion that
in the facts and circumstances noted above,
there is no justification in not making
payment of the amount due and payable to
the petitioner.

16. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus
is issued directing the respondents to
ensure that the amount due and payable to
the petitioner is released in its favour
within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a true attested copy of the
instant order by the second respondent.

17. The writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
----------
(2022)03ILR A985
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 29566 of 2021

Rajesh Singh Sengar ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sanjeev Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Arms Act, 1959 - Rule 17 -
Arms Rules, 2016 - Schedule II - Rules 5,
17 - Arms Rules 1962 - Rule 54 -Renewal
of Arms License - In case of change in
permanent residence to the district where
renewal is sought, the licencing authority
of such district would hence forward
become
responsible
for
watching
all
future renewals of licence and shall inform
the original issuing authority accordingly.
It is also provided that the procedure is to
be repeated on each subsequent occasion
of renewal of licence. (Para 16)

In the present case, once the permanent
address of the petitioner had shifted from State
of Haryana to State of Uttar Pradesh, he was
required to make an application before the
District Magistrate Unnao for renewal of his
arms licence in that particular district as per
Rule 54 of Rules, 1962. It is apparent that
petitioner's application for renewal dated 12th
January, 2015 was rightly made to the District
Magistrate, Unnao in terms of Schedule II of
Rules 1962. The renewal thereafter by the
District Magistrate, Unnao and intimating the
same
to
District
Magistrate
Sirsa
were
completely in accordance with Rule 54 of the
said Rules. (Para 17, 22)

It is also evident that petitioner had submitted
his application for renewal vide letter dated 15th
March, 2021, well before its expiry and the
same was required to be considered and
decided by the District Magistrate Unnao and
not the District Magistrate Sirsa in view of Rules
54 of the Rules 1962 and Rule 5 and 17 of the
Rules 2016. The mere fact that petitioner's
issuing authority has been indicated in
N.D.A.L. Portal as Sirsa, Haryana is an
error by opposite parties themselves, the
benefit of which cannot be extended to
them to the detriment of petitioner. It was
the duty of opposite parties to have
updated their records once petitioner's
licence stood renewed by the District
Magistrate Unnao. The fact whether District
Magistrate,
Unnao
intimated
the
District
Magistrate
Sirsa
regarding
renewal
of
petitioner's licence in 2015 and subsequently is
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also an inter-departmental procedure with which
petitioner has no concern. The opposite parties
by means of affidavit filed in support of
exemption from personal appearance have also
brought on record order dated 22nd February,
2022 whereby petitioner's arms licence has
been renewed by the District Magistrate Unnao
from 26th March, 2021 till 25th March, 2026 but
the same has been made subject to decision of
this petition and orders to be passed by the
District Magistrate Sirsa. (Para 23, 24)

It is apparent that the renewal of petitioner's
arms licence after 2015 by the District
Magistrate Unnao was very well in accordance
with law. (Para 25)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present petition challenges order dated
22.03.2021,
rejecting
petitioner's
application for registration/renewal of
arms license at his present address.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioner and learned State Counsel for
opposite parties.

2. In pursuance to directions issued
earlier, Mr. Ravindra Kumar District
Magistrate, Unnao and Mr. Narendra Singh
Officer Incharge, Arms/Additional District
Magistrate, Unnao are present.

3. Petition has been filed against order
dated
22nd
March,
2021
rejecting
petitioner's
application
for
registration/renewal of arms licence at his
present address in Uttar Pradesh bearing
Licence
No.
8820/DM/SSA
Revolver
No.S2252N.P.bore. Learned counsel for
petitioner submits that the petitioner was
employed in Indian Air Force and was
issued a licence for the aforesaid revolver
in the year 2012 on 27th April, 2012 from
District Sirsa, State of Haryana. He
subsequently took voluntary retirement
from service and started residing in district
Unnao in State of U.P. in 2014. It is
submitted that arms licence was issued by
the District Magistrate, Sirsa, Haryana up
till 2015 which was thereafter renewed up
till 2016.

4. It is submitted that in view of the
fact that petitioner subsequently started
residing in State of U.P., he gave an
application dated 12th January, 2015 to the
District Magistrate for registration of the
arms licence in State of U.P. It is submitted
that subsequently correspondence ensued
between the District Magistrate, Unnao and
District Magistrate Sirsa regarding details
of petitioner's licence and queries of the
District Magistrate, Unnao were satisfied
by District Magistrate, Sirsa whereafter
petitioner's licence was renewed by the
District Magistrate Unnao from 2016 till
2018 and thereafter till 25th March, 2021
vide order dated 6the June, 2018.

5. It is further submitted that due to
licence expiring in March, 2021 petitioner
gave another application to the District
Magistrate, Unnao on 15th March, 2021
for renewal of licence but the District
Magistrate Unnao instead of renewing
rejected it on 22nd March, 2021 which is
under challenge in the present writ
petition.

6. It is submitted that the aforesaid
order was challenged in the present writ
petition
on
14th
December,
2021
whereafter prior to filing of counter
affidavit, the District Magistrate, Unnao
vide letter dated 7th January, 2022
recommended cancellation of petitioner's
licence to the District Magistrate Sirsa on
account of the fact that petitioner's renewal
has already expired in March, 2021.
3 All. Rajesh Singh Sengar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
987

7. It is submitted that in pursuance to
aforesaid recommendation, the District
Magistrate, Sirsa vide order dated 7th
February, 2022 has thereafter suspended
petitioner's arms licence.

8. It has been further submitted that
once petitioner has shifted his place of
residence from Haryana and gave an
application before the District Magistrate,
Unnao intimating the change of residence
on 12th January, 2015, the said authority
was under statutory duty in terms of Rule
17 of the Rules framed under the Arms Act,
1959 to register petitioner's arms licence in
the State of U.P. and to issue a new licence
book. As such it is submitted that any
default in new registration of petitioner's
arms licence in State of U.P. and its
subsequent renewal is owing to default on
the part of opposite parties themselves. It is
further submitted that once petitioner's
arms licnece was renewed up till March,
2021 an application for further renewal was
also given prior to expiring of the renewal
period, it was incumbent upon the opposite
parties to have renewed arms licence
without requiring the District Magistrate
Sirsa to cancel the arms licence.

9. Learned State Counsel upon
instructions
refuted
the
submissions
advanced by learned counsel for petitioner.
It is submitted that initial arms licence of
petitioner was issued by the District
Magistrate, Sirsa in terms of Schedule II to
the Arms Rules, 2016. The initial period of
licence was only up till 2015 whereafter it
was extended under Item III of Schedule II
(Rule 5 of the Arms Rules) for the whole of
India by the State Government concerned.
It is submitted that once the arms licence of
petitioner had been extended for the whole
of India, it could have been renewed only
by the District Magistrate concerned that is
the
District
Magistrate,
Sirsa
since
subsequent to his change in place of
residence, no re-registration of petitioner's
arms licence took place and only renewal
had taken place. It is submitted that
renewal of petitioner's arms licence was
done under a misconception which could
not be repeated. It is submitted that even
while
making
the
application
for
registration of the arms licence, no licence
fee had been deposited by the petitioner
due to which there was no occasion for the
opposite
parties
to
have
registered
petitioner's arms lience in the State of U.P.
and as such petitioner's arms licence
continued to be registered in the State of
Haryana. It is thus submitted that due to the
said fact that petitioner's arms licence was
never registered in State of U.P., there
could not have been a question for its
renewal by the erstwhile District Magistrate
in Unnao in the State of U.P.

10. In view of aforesaid facts, it is
submitted that the petitioner's arms licence
clearly expired on 25th March, 2021 and
the District Magistrate Unnao was very
well within his authority to have required
the initial registering authority that is the
District Magistrate Sirsa to take action for
cancellation of petitioner's arms licence
since the same was not renewed either in
Haryana or in Uttar Pradesh. As such it is
submitted that there is no illegality in the
action taken by the opposite parties.

11. It is submitted that deferring to
directions passed by this Court, licencing
authority has thereafter vide order dated
22nd February, 2022 renewed petitioner's
arms licence from 26th March, 2021 till
25th March, 2026 which has been made
subject to the order to be passed in the
present writ petition and the orders to be
passed in cancellation proceedings that are
988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pending in pursuance to the order dated 7th
February, 2022 issued by the District
Magistrate Sirsa.

12.

Considering
submissions
advanced by learned counsel for parties and
upon perusal of material on record, it is
admitted case of parties that petitioner's
initial arms licence was registered and
issued to him in District Sirsa, State of
Haryana in 2012, which was valid up to
25th March, 2015. Subsequently it was
extended to all of India vide order dated 9th
October, 2013 by the State Government in
terms of provisions then existing.

13. It is also admitted between the
parties that subsequently the petitioner
started residing at Unnao, State of Uttar
Pradesh which became his permanent
residence
and
thereafter
made
an
application on 12th January, 2015 for
registration of his arms licence at the
present place of residence in District
Unnao, State of U.P.. Upon such an
application being made, the office of
District Magistrate vide letter dated 29th
January, 2015 sought information from the
District Magistrate Sirsa, District Haryana
pertaining to details of petitioner's arms
licence. The said query was replied to vide
letter dated 16th February, 2015. Certain
other
correspondence
pertaining
to
petitioner's arms licence also took place
between the two District Magistrates with
all the queries being satisfied.

14. In pursuance thereof, the validity
of petitioner arms licence was thereafter
extended by the District Magistrate, Unnao,
State of U.P. up till 25th March, 2018. The
validity was thereafter extended up till 25th
March, 2021 vide order dated 6th June,
2018. The dispute with regard to extension
of petitioner's arms licence validity after
25th
June,
2021
commenced
with
petitioner's application for further renewal
vide letter dated 15th March, 2021 with
opposite parties taking the stand in the
impugned order that once the petitioner's
arms licence stood registered in district
Sirsa, Haryana and same was being
reflected in the NDAL portal, there was no
occasion for the District Magistrate, Unnao
to renew the arms licence. Apparently in
view of the aforesaid stand, the District
Magistrate, Unnao wrote a letter dated 7th
January, 2022 to District Magistrate Sirsa
indicating the fact that petitioner's arms
licence had not been renewed subsequent to
March, 2021 due to which it was taken into
custody by the police station concerned and
recommendation was made for cancellation
of petitioner's arms licence.

15. From the material on record it
transpires that petitioner's licence issued
initially had expired in 2015 whereafter
petitioner gave an application dated 12th
January, 2015 to the District Magistrate
Unnao for renewal. It is relevant to indicate
that prior to 2016, the Arms Rules, 1962
were holding the field with effect from Ist
October, 1962. Provision of renewal of
licences is indicated in Rule 54 of the said
Rules and are as follows:-

"54. Renewal of licences .

(1) Every licence may, at its
expiration and subject to the same
condition (if any) as to the grant thereof, be
renewed by the authority mentioned in
Schedule II as renewin

[Provided that the licence so
renewed may be signed in the appropriate
column of the licence by such officer as
may be specially empowered in this behalf
by the State Government under rule 4.]
3 All. Rajesh Singh Sengar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
989

(2) The authority issuing a
licence shall ordinarily be responsible for
watching all future renewals of the licence.
Where a licence is renewed by an authority
other than the authority who granted it, the
former shall forthwith inform the latter of
the fact of renewal and the period for
which such renewal is valid. The applicant
for the renewal of a licence under this rule
shall always be required to state his
permanent residence, and, if he notices a
change in his permanent residence to the
district in which the renewal is sought, the
licensing authority of such district shall
hence-forward become responsible for
watching all future renewals of his licence
and shall inform the original issuing
authority accordingly. The procedure shall
be repeated on each subsequent occasion
of renewal of the licence, the necessary
intimation being sent by the renewing
authority to the original issuing authority
or to the authority who last renewed the
licence
on
a
permanent
change
of
residence, as the case may be.

(3) An application for renewal of
a licence for arms or ammunition deposited
under sub-rule (1) of rule 47 may be made
by the depositor, or where it is not
practicable to make the application direct,
through the dealer or any other person
authorised by him in this behalf while the
arms or ammunition continue to be so
deposited.

(4) The licensing authority may
consider an application for renewal of a
licence, if the period between the date of its
expiry and the date of application is not, in
his opinion, unduly alongwith due regard
to the circumstances of the case, and all
renewal fees for the intervening period are
paid; otherwise the application may be
treated as one for grant of a fresh licence.

[(5) The licensing authority and
the renewing authority at the Centre or at
the State level, while grantiilga licence or
renewing a licence, the case may be, shall
enter the data of the record in an electronic
format duly approved by the Central
Government or the State Government, as
the case may be.

(6) The licensing authority and
the renewing authority shall also enter
such data as are required in an electronic
automated system as developed by the
National Informatics Centre for this
purpose and the aforesaid electronic
automated system shall generate a unique
number without which no arms licence
shall be considered as valid with effect
from the Ist October, 2015]"

16. As would be evident from a
perusal of Rule 54(ii) of the Rules that in
case of change in permanent residence to
the district where such renewal is sought,
the licencing authority of such district
would hence forward become responsible
for watching all future renewals of licence
and shall inform the original issuing
authority accordingly. It is also provided
that the procedure is to be repeated on each
subsequent occasion of renewal of licence.

17. In view of aforesaid provision, it
is apparent that petitioner's application for
renewal dated 12th January, 2015 was
rightly made to the District Magistrate,
Unnao in terms of Schedule II of Rules
1962. The renewal thereafter by the District
Magistrate, Unnao and intimating the same
to
District
Magistrate
Sirsa
were
completely in accordance with Rule 54 of
the said Rules.

18. It is also evident that once
petitioner's licence was renewed up to 25th
990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
March, 2021, he was required to submit a
fresh
renewal
before
the
District
Magistrate, Unnao and not the District
Magistrate, Sirsa. It is also relevant that
after 2016, Arms Rules 2016 came into
effect on 15th July, 2016 in terms of Rule
1(ii) of the said Rules which superseded
earlier Arms Rules of 1962.

19. The provisions pertaining to the
present dispute relating to renewal after
25.6.2021 are clearly covered by the Rules
5 and 17 of the Arms Rules, 2016 as well
as Schedule II to the said Rules.

20. Schedule II to the Arms Rules
indicates the authorities concerned who
have been empowered to register or renew
the arms licences issued for various
purposes. Item III of the said schedule
clearly indicates that arms licence can be
registered throughout the district or area of
jurisdiction by the District Magistrate
concerned. With regard to extension to
whole of India, the State Government is
empowered authority.

21. In the present case, it is seen that
initial arms licence of petitioner was issued
by the district magistrate concerned but
subsequently it was extended to all of India
by the State Government on 9th October,
2013. There does not appear to be any
provision either in the Arms Act or in the
Rules for a licence to be registered
separately for a particular district, State or
PAN
India
simultaneously.
In
such
circumstances, it is clear that due to passing
of subsequent order dated 9th October,
2013 petitioner's licence registration for
Arms Act was extended PAN India by the
State Government of Haryana.

22. Rule 17 of the Arms Rules, 2016
pertains to registration of licence outside
licencing authority and change of address
with existing licencing authority. The said
rule indicates the procedure which is
required to be followed by a person who
requires registration of his licence either
within or outside licencing authority and
with regard to change of address with
existing licencing authority. In the present
case, once the permanent address of the
petitioner had shifted from State of
Haryana to State of Uttar Pradesh, he was
required to make an application before the
District Magistrate Unnao for renewal of
his arms licence in that particular district as
per Rule 54 of Rules, 1962. The letter dated
12th January, 2015 by the petitioner to the
District Magistrate, Unnao clearly indicates
its subject as re-registration of petitioner's
licence in District Unnao. The gist and
prayer made in the aforesaid letter is in
conformity with Rule 54 of Arms Rules
1962.

23. From the narration made herein
above, it is evident that renewal of
petitioner's
licence
in
2015
and
subsequently were in conformity with the
Rules of 1962. Since petitioner had already
changed his permanent address prior to
advent of Rules of 2016, there was no
requirement for re-registration in terms of
Rule 17 of the Rules, 2016, which were
notified subsequently. As such the opposite
parties clearly fell in error in holding that
petitioner's licence was not registered in
District Unnao. It is also evident that
petitioner had submitted his application for
renewal vide letter dated 15th March, 2021,
well before its expiry and the same was
required to be considered and decided by
the District Magistrate Unnao and not the
District Magistrate Sirsa in view of Rules
54 of the Rules 1962 and Rule 5 and 17 of
the Rules 2016. The mere fact that
petitioner's issuing authority has been
3 All. Mauji Lal & Ors. Vs. State
991
indicated in N.D.A.L. Portal as Sirsa,
Haryana is an error by opposite parties
themselves, the benefit of which can not be
extended to them to the detriment of
petitioner. It was the duty of opposite
parties to have updated their records once
petitioner's licence stood renewed by the
District
Magistrate
Unnao.
The
fact
whether
District
Magistrate,
Unnao
intimated the District Magistrate Sirsa
regarding renewal of petitioner's licence in
2015 and subsequently is also an inter
departmental
procedure
with
which
petitioner has no concern.

24. It has been informed that in
pursuance to impugned order, the authorities
at Unnao have seized petitioner's fire arm
and have furthermore intimated the District
Magistrate
Sirsa
for
cancellation
of
petitioner's licence and in pursuance thereof,
the District Magistrate Sirsa has also
initiated some proceeding for cancellation of
fire arm since it has not been renewed after
25th March, 2021. The opposite parties by
means of affidavit filed in support of
exemption from personal appearance have
also brought on record order dated 22nd
February, 2022 whereby petitioner's arms
licence has been renewed by the District
Magistrate Unnao from 26th March, 2021
till 25th March, 2026 but the same has been
made subject to decision of this petition and
orders to be passed by the District
Magistrate Sirsa.

25. In view of the discussion made
herein above, it is apparent that the renewal
of petitioner's arms licence after 2015 by the
District Magistrate Unnao was very well in
accordance with law and therefore there was
no occasion for the opposite parties to have
rejected petitioner's application for renewal
by means of impugned order dated 22nd
March, 2021.

26. In view of aforesaid, the impugned
order dated 22nd March, 2021 being clearly
unsustainable is quashed by issuance a writ
in the nature of Certiorari. It is also held that
the recommendation issued by the District
Magistrate, Unnao dated 7th January, 2022
to the District Magistrate Sirsa, Haryana was
clearly not in accordance with law as
indicated herein above. A further writ in the
nature of Mandamus is issued commanding
the opposite parties to return petitioner's
revolver S-2252NP bore bearing licence No.
8820/DM/SSA forthwith. It is also directed
that the petitioner's arms licence would stand
renewed up to 25th March, 2026 as per
order dated 22nd February, 2022 issued by
the Incharge Arms, Unnao in accordance
with this judgment. Resultantly the petition
succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their
own costs.
----------
(2022)03ILR A991
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 1980

Mauji Lal & Ors. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri R.K. Saxena, Sri Bal Mukund, Sri Mohd.
Naushad Siddiqui, Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun

Counsel for the Respondent:
D.G.A.

Record of Trial Court pertaining to the Criminal
Trial is unavailable or destroyed during the
pendency of the criminal appeal before the
Appellate Court.