# Ram Murat v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 212
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-02-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4293 of 1999
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-murat-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-and-others-39797
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Criminal Procedure Code- Section 374-
Criminal Appeal -identification- parade
was held more than 15 days after the
arrest-
The
prosecution
had
not
advanced any reason in not holding th

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
212
2. This Special Appeal is directed
against
the
order
dated
24.2.1997
dismissing the writ petition of the
appellant. The appellant- writ petitioner
had applied for under the provisions of
Dying in Harness Rules and claimed
appointment on the post of Consolidator.
His father was working as Consolidation
Officer (Class II Gazetted Officer) being
higher in rank to that of consolidator.
However, the appellant moved a writ
petition challenging the act of the State
Government in appointing him as a clerk
and claiming that he is entitled to be
appointed as a Consolidator under the rule
itself.

3. It is the contention of the
appellant that he is eligible to be
appointed
as
Consolidator
having
requisite qualification but he has been
denied of the same and on the other-hand,
the persons who have lesser qualification
than the appellant and also applied later
on were given appointment on the post of
Consolidator.

4. The learned Single Judge, rejected
the case of the appellant- writ petitioner
on the ground that his case could not be
substantiated. However, the appellant -
writ petitioner has produced necessary
record and relevant documents by way of
filing a supplementary affidavit wherein
he has mentioned that the post of
Consolidator was filled up, subsequently
under the provision of Dying in Harness
Rules from amongst the candidates who
had lesser qualification than the appellant.
We are of the view that such act on the
part of the State Government amounts to
discrimination, arbitrariness and violative
of Article -14 of the Constitution of India.
In our view, the learned Single Judge did
not correctly assess the position and
dismissed the writ petition. We are of the
view that the appellant-writ petitioner
should be given appointment on the post
of consolidator in the event such post is
available. The order dated 24.2.1997
passed by the learned Single Judge is set
aside. The Special Appeal and Writ
petition are allowed with the aforesaid
directions and observations.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 4.2.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4293 of 1999

Ram Murat

...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.P. Srivastava
Sri D.V. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India- Article 226- if the
license of fire arm is cancelled on the
ground of the involvement in criminal
case, and once licensee was acquitted,
those cases could not furnish material
for cancellation of his license.
Held - Para 2)

On the date on which the Commissioner
passed his order, it cannot be said that
the cancellation of license was in the
public interest and this fact could not be
substantiated by the State.
Cases relied on-
J.I.C. (1999) 2 P. 732
1996 AWC (supp.) P. 46
1All] Ram Murat V. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
213
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. By means of the present writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has
challenged the orders dated 5.6.1997 and
1.1.1999, Annexure-4 and 9 to the writ
petition, respectively, passed by licensing
authority as well as the appellate authority
cancelling the petitioner's fire -arm
license on the ground that the petitioner is
involved in criminal case being case
crime no. 141 of 1996, under Sections
307/323/504/506 I.P.C., registered at
police station Munderwa, district Basti,
which is pending before the Court below
and a charge sheet, in this connection, has
been submitted. With regard to the
aforesaid
criminal
case,
during
the
pendency of the present writ petition this
Court was of the opinion that the order
cancelling the license of the petitioner's
fire -arm shall remain stayed. This interim
order has been passed by this Court on 5th
of February, 1999. It is submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
trial of the aforesaid case, referred to
above, being Sessions Trial No. 347 of
1999 has resulted into the acquittal of the
petitioner from the aforesaid charge vide
order dated 29.1.2001 passed by VIth
Additional District Judge, Basti, a copy of
judgement and order dated 29.1.2001 has
been annexed as Ananexure-1 to the
rejoinder affidavit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon a decision of this Court
reported in JIC (1999) 2 page 732- Lalji
Versus Commissioner Kanpur Division,
Kanpur, in which learned Single Judge
relying upon the earlier decision of this
Court reported in 1996 (Supp.) AWC,
46- Anil Kumar Singh Versus District
Magistrate, Pratapgarh and others,
(W.P. No. 878 of 1979, decided on
22.9.1994) has held that if the license of
fire arm is cancelled on the ground of the
involvement in criminal case, and once
licensee was acquitted, those cases could
not furnish material for cancellation of his
license, therefore on the date on which the
Commissioner passed his order, it cannot
be said that the cancellation of license
was in the public interest and this fact
could not be substantiated by the State.

3. In this view of the matter and also
on the facts and circumstances stated
above, this writ petition deserves to be
allowed and is accordingly allowed. The
orders dated 5.6.1997 and 1.1.1999,
passed by respondent nos. 3 and 2,
(Annexure-4 and 9 to the writ petition)
are hereby quashed. However, partiers
shall bear their own costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 1.2.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE U.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 1981

Kansa alias Kansraj ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Pratap Narain Misra

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Procedure Code- Section 374-
Criminal Appeal -identification- parade
was held more than 15 days after the
arrest-
The
prosecution
had
not
advanced any reason in not holding the
identification parade promptly- held-
unless there is good reason for delay, the