# Ram Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 206
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-19
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 7078 of 2004
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49132
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 17
- Variation, suspension and revocation of
licences , Section 18 - Appeal , Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 342, 504, 506, - if the arm/gun
is not used in the incident - no question
would arise to cancel the arm licence -
mere pendency of a case does not create
ground to cancel the arm licence. (Para -
4,22)

Quashing of
- order passed by District
Magistrate (Licencing Authority) - to cancel arm
licence of petitioner (arm licence holder) -
confirmed by Appellate Authority/Commissioner
- only one criminal case against the petitioner -
petitioner neither possessed nor used his arm -
at the time of the alleged incident - previous
criminal antecedents. (Para -1,4,22)

HELD:-Crimes not generally committed by
licensed
arms
but
generally
offence
are
committed by use of unlicensed country-made
firearms, therefore, only on the basis of
pendency of one case and apprehension, arm
licence cannot be cancelled. Both impugned
orders suffer from manifest error in the eyes of
law and are liable to be quashed. (Para -
22,24)

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner to attend his classes in the
University and appear in the examinations.
The petitioner shall be permitted to appear
in the examinations of B.A.LL.B five year
course. In case, the period prescribed by the
relevant Rules of the University to
complete the B.A.LL.B. five year course
are to expire before the petitioner gets the
opportunity
to
appear
in
regular
examinations, the University shall hold
special examinations for the semesters in
which the petitioner could not appear
because of his remaining under suspension
or under expulsion from the University.

47. With the aforesaid directions, the
writ petition is allowed.

48. Let this order be communicated to
the
Vice-Chancellor,
Aligarh
Muslim
University,
Aligarh
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance) within 48 hours.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 206
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 7078 of 2004

Ram Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri C.H. Singh Gautam, Sri C.S. Gautam

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., S.C.

(A) Civil Law - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 17
- Variation, suspension and revocation of
licences , Section 18 - Appeal , Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 342, 504, 506, - if the arm/gun
is not used in the incident - no question
would arise to cancel the arm licence -
mere pendency of a case does not create
ground to cancel the arm licence. (Para -
4,22)

Quashing of
- order passed by District
Magistrate (Licencing Authority) - to cancel arm
licence of petitioner (arm licence holder) -
confirmed by Appellate Authority/Commissioner
- only one criminal case against the petitioner -
petitioner neither possessed nor used his arm -
at the time of the alleged incident - previous
criminal antecedents. (Para -1,4,22)

HELD:-Crimes not generally committed by
licensed
arms
but
generally
offence
are
committed by use of unlicensed country-made
firearms, therefore, only on the basis of
pendency of one case and apprehension, arm
licence cannot be cancelled. Both impugned
orders suffer from manifest error in the eyes of
law and are liable to be quashed. (Para -
22,24)

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Prasad Vs Commissioner & ors., 2020 0
Supreme (All) 104

2. Masiuddin Vs Commissioner, Alld. Division,
Alld. & anr., 1972 ALJ 573

3. Habib Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2002 (44) ACC
783

4. Satish Singh Vs D.M., Sultanpur , 2009 (4)
ADJ (LB)

5. Chandrabali Tewari Vs the Commissioner,
Faizabad, 2014 (32) LCD 1696

6. Indrajeet Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-C
No.4947 of 2019

7. Deputy Inspector General of Police & anr. Vs
S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598

8. Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
1984 AWC 145 (FB)
1 All. Ram Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
207
9. Ilam Singh Vs Commissioner, Meerut Division
& ors., 1987 ALJ 416

10. Jageshwar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,2009 (67)
ACC 157

11. Surya Narain Mishra Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2015 (7) ADJ 510

12. Raghuveer Singh Vs Commissioner & ors.,
2020 SCC OnLine All 192

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. This
writ petition
has
been
instituted by the petitioner-arm licence
holder
to
quash
the
arm
licence
cancellation order dated 17.02.1999 passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Ghazipur/Licencing Authority and order
dated 06.01.2004 passed by the Appellate
Authority/Commissioner, Varanasi Region,
Varanasi confirming the cancellation order.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that the
petitioner is the resident of Village
Jamuaon, Post Office Barsara, Police
Station Karanda, District Ghazipur. He is a
reputed person of his locality and he also
possesses an arm licence of SBBL as
Licence No.303/P/11 (SBBL No.15868).
One Mithai Lal, active member of the
naxali
organization
namely
Bhartiya
Communist Party (Male), Block Prabhari
of the said organization, on 24.02.1997
lodged an FIR against the petitioner
including six other persons. He wanted to
spread the effect and influence of his
organization in the concerned area to grab
some property of the State Government
with the help of other active members of
the said organization, as a result, the
villagers of the petitioner's village made an
application before the revenue authorities
as well as police authorities also and when
he did not succeed in his purpose, he
lodged the alleged FIR on the vexatious
ground, however, there was no any specific
role of the petitioner as mentioned in the
alleged FIR. The FIR was lodged in Case
Crime No.26 of 1997, under Sections 147,
148, 149, 323, 342, 504, 506 IPC in which
SHO, Karanda submitted report dated
28.10.1997
to
respondent
no.3
for
cancellation of the licence of the petitioner.
After
receiving
the
report
dated
28.10.1997, the respondent no.3 issued a
show cause notice on 05.11.1997 (annexure
no.2) to the petitioner directing him to
appear before him on 02.12.1997 and
explain as to why his licence may not be
cancelled. The petitioner appeared before
the respondent no.3 and submitted his reply
on 20.04.1998 mentioning therein that he
neither has criminal antecedent nor has
committed any such offence as alleged and
only on the political pressure, the FIR has
been lodged on the false and vexatious
grounds. It was also mentioned in the reply
that no person of his village has lodged any
FIR regarding the alleged incident and no
such offence took place in the village but
afterthought for mounting pressure on the
reputed persons of the said area, the
aforesaid FIR was lodged by the active
member of naxali organization. However,
without applying his judicial mind and on
the ground of said FIR and police report,
the respondent no.3 cancelled the arm
licence issued to the petitioner vide order
dated 17.02.1999 (annexure no.3 to the writ
petition).

3. Being aggrieved by the order dated
17.02.1999, the petitioner filed an appeal
under Section 18 of the Arms Act before
respondent no.2 on 15.03.1999 praying for
setting aside the order dated 17.02.1999.
After hearing the matter, the respondent
no.2, Commissioner, Varanasi Region,
Varanasi,
dismissed
the
appeal
vide
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment and order dated 06.01.2004
(annexure no.5).

4. The dispute as alleged in the FIR is
that number of persons have beaten the
informant by kick and foot and also tried to
burn him but neither any injury report nor
any
medical
examination
report
was
produced by the informant till date. Further in
the FIR, the petitioner has been assigned the
role of beating the informant with lathi and
danda and by kick and foot but there is no
mention of use of arms at all. The informant
is not the resident of the same village and
there is no explanation about the presence of
the petitioner at the place of occurrence and
neither any person of that village lodged an
FIR/complaint against the petitioner nor has
given any statement before the police or the
Magistrate. The village of the petitioner falls
within the naxali affected area and on every
day unsocial elements as well as members of
the naxali organization try to attack and
threaten the villagers and threatening letters
of the naxali organization have also been
received by number of villagers. Even then
the respondents without considering the
relevant facts cancelled the arm license of the
petitioner. The petitioner neither possessed
nor used his arm at the time of the alleged
incident and in number of decisions of
Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, it is
settled law that if the arm/gun is not used in
the incident, no question would arise to
cancel the arm licence.

5. On the aforesaid grounds, it has
been contended that the both the impugned
orders are wholly illegal, mala fide and not
sustainable in the eyes of law, and they
must be quashed.

6. No counter affidavit has been filed
by
the
respondents.
However,
a
supplementary affidavit has been filed by
the petitioner bearing no.139886 of 2006
annexing certified copy of the Case No.959
of 1997 (State Vs. Shiv Singh and others)
wherein he has reiterated the contents of
the petition. Perusal of the order-sheet of
aforesaid revealed that till the date of filing
only one witness has been examined.

7. Section 17 of the Arms Act is as
under:

"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
1 All. Ram Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
209
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
High Court 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 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."

8. It would be proper to see the case
in view of the cases decided by the
Courts of Records on the point. Hence
some relevant cases are referred and
discussed
to
reach
at
the
correct
conclusion.

9.
In
Ram
Prasad
Vs.
Commissioner and others, 2020 0
Supreme (All) 104, District Magistrate
cancelled the arms license on the basis of
pendency of criminal cases against the
petitioner.
Petitioner
was
later
on
acquitted from the criminal cases. Order
of Acquittal was not showing use of fire
arm of the petitioner. It was held that
after acquittal the very basis of the order
of
cancellation
vanished
and
mere
apprehension expressed in the impugned
orders that the petitioner would misuse
the fire arm and would extend threat to
the persons of the weaker section of the
society, the arm licence could not be
cancelled.

10. In Ram Prasad (Supra), following
principles have been laid down regarding
licence possession of firearms and its
suspension and revocation;

(i) Right to hold fire arm licence
granted by the authorities in accordance
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with the provisions contained in the Arms
Act, 1959 is a valuable right of an
individual.

(ii) Licencing authority has the
power to suspend or revoke an arm's
licence only if any of the conditions
mentioned in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub
Section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act
exists.

(iii) The provisions of Section 17
of the Act cannot be invoked lightly in an
arbitrary manner.

(iv) The licencing authority has to
satisfy itself if it is necessary for the
security of public peace or for public safety
to suspend or revoke the licence.

(v) Such satisfaction of the
licencing authority must be expressed in
the order and must be based on relevant
material.

(vi) Public peace or public
safety do not mean ordinary disturbance
of law and order. Public safety means
safety of the public at large and not of
few persons only.

(vii)
Mere
involvement
or
pendency of a criminal case does not, of
its own, necessarily affect public peace or
public safety. The licencing authority in
each case has to record a finding as to
how and under what circumstances the
possession
of
the
arm
licence
is
detrimental to the public peace or public
safety.

(viii) On mere apprehension of
misuse of fire arm or that the licencee
would extend threat to the persons of the
weaker section, the arm licence cannot be
cancelled. There must be some positive
incident in which the licencee participated
or used his arm, leading to breach of public
peace or public security.

(ix) After acquittal of the licencee
from the criminal case, the very basis of
cancellation of arm licence is vanished.

11. In the light of the above principles,
the impugned order does not satisfy the
test.

12. In Masiuddin Vs. Commissioner,
Allahabad
Division,
Allahabad
and
another, 1972 ALJ 573, it is held that
"after a license is granted, the right to hold
the license and possess a gun is a valuable
individual right in a free country". Further
it is held that "a license may be cancelled,
inter alia on the ground that it is necessary
for the security of the public peace or for
public safety, to do so. Mere existence of
enmity between the licensee and another
person would not establish the necessary
connection with the security of public
peace or public safety".

13. In Habib Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2002 (44) ACC 783, it has been
held that "mere involvement in a criminal
case cannot in any way affect the public
security or public interest and the order
cancelling or revoking licence of fire arm
was not justified".

14. In Satish Singh Vs. District
Magistrate, Sultanpur 2009 (4) ADJ
(LB), it has been held that "right to possess
arms is statutory right but right to live and
liberty is fundamental right guaranteed by
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Corollary to it, it is citizen's right to possess
firearms for their personal safety to save
their family from miscreants. It is often
said that ordinarily in a civilised society,
only civilised persons require arms licence
for their safety and security and not the
criminals.
Of
course,
in
case
the
government feels that the arms licence are
abused for oblique motive or criminal
activities, then appropriate measure may be
adopted to check such malpractice. But
arms licence should not be suspended in a
1 All. Ram Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
211
routine
manner
mechanically,
without
application of mind and keeping in view
the letter and spirit of Section 17 of the
Arms Act".

15. In Chandrabali Tewari Vs. the
Commissioner, Faizabad, 2014 (32) LCD
1696, it has been held that "mere pendency
of criminal case is no ground to cancel fire
arm licence. It has also been held that as in
that case there were no allegations that the
licenced gun was ever taken out by the
licensee and was used in the act, the order
canceling petitioner's fire arm licence was
quashed".

16.
However,
learned
Standing
Counsel has tried to support the impugned
orders and placed reliance on the judgment
of this Court passed in Indrajeet Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C
No.4947 of 2019, decided on 22.10.2021
wherein relying upon the judgment given in
the case of Deputy Inspector General of
Police and another Vs. S. Samuthiram,
(2013) 1 SCC 598, it has been held that
"the
expressions
'honorable
acquittal',
'acquitted of blame', 'fully exonerated' are
unknown
to
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure or the Penal Code, which are
coined by judicial pronouncements. It is
difficult to define precisely what is meant
by the expression 'honorably acquitted'.
When the accused is acquitted after full
consideration of prosecution evidence and
that the prosecution had miserably failed to
prove the charges levelled against the
accused, it can possibly be said that the
accused was honorably acquitted".

17. In Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 1984 AWC 145
(FB), after noticing the provisions of
Section 17(3) of the Arms Act the Full
Bench in paragraphs-5 and 9 held as
follows:

"5. A perusal of abovementioned
provisions indicates that the licensing
authority has been given the power to
suspend or revoe an arms licence only if
any of the conditions mentioned in subclauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3) of
Section 17 of Act exists." sub section (5) of
Section 17 makes it obligatory upon the
licensing authority to, while passing the
order revoking/suspending an arms licence,
record in writing the reasons therefore and
to, on demand, furnish a brief statement
thereof to the holder of the license unless it
considers that it will not be in the public
interest to do so."

"9. ...it is true that in order to
revoke/suspend an arms licence, the
licensing authority has necessarily to come
to the conclusion that the facts justifying
revocation/suspension of licence mentioned
in grounds (a) to (e) of section 17 exist"

18. In Ilam Singh Vs. Commissioner,
Meerut Division and others, 1987 ALJ
416 this Court held that under Section
17(3) (b) the licencing authority may
suspend or revoke a licence if it becomes
necessary for the security of public peace
or public safety. In this case no report was
lodged against the licensee indicating that
he had used the gun in the incident which
led to the breach of public peace or public
safety. It was held that there must be some
positive incident in which the petitioner
participated and used his gun which led to
breach of public peace or public safety and
in the absence of the use of the gun by the
licencee against the security of public
peace or public safety the licence of the
gun could not be suspended or revoked.
The relevant paragraphs-4 and 5 of the
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment in Ilam Singh (supra) are being
reproduced as under:

"4. Having heard the learned
counsel for the petitioner I am of the view
that the submissions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to
be without substance. Section 17(3) (b) of
the Arms Act enacts that licensing authority
may by order in writing suspend a licence
or revoke the same if it becomes necessary
for the security of public peace or the
public safety. When once a person has been
granted a licence and he acquires a gun, it
becomes one of his properties. In the
present case no incident of breach of
security of the public peace or public safety
at the behest of the petitioner has been
pointed out. Even no report was lodged
against the petitioner indicating that he
used his gun in the incident which led to the
breach of public peace or public safety.
Even though some reports might have been
lodged but that could not be said to be a
sufficient reason to cancel the licence.

5. There must be some positive
incident
in
which
the
petitioner
participated and used his gun which led to
the breach of the public peace or public
safety. In the absence of the use of the gun
by the petitioner against the security of
public peace or public safety the licence of
the gun of the petitioner was not liable
either to be suspended or revoked. The
licensing
authority
as
well
as
the
Commissioner committed errors on the face
of the record in cancelling the licence of
the gun held by the petitioner in utter
disregard of the provisions of Section 17
(3) (b) of the Arms Act. In view of these
facts the impugned orders cannot be
sustained and deserves to be quashed."

19. In Jageshwar Vs. State of U.P.
and others 2009 (67) ACC 157 this court
held that in view of the settled law the
licence under the Arms Act cannot be
suspended
on
the
ground
of
mere
involvement in a criminal case or criminal
trial or on the basis of mere apprehension
of misuse of fire arm by the licensee.

20. In Surya Narain Mishra Vs. Stae
of U.P. and others, 2015 (7) ADJ 510,
similar view has been taken by this Court
relying upon subsequent decisions. Para-14
of the judgment is reproduced:

"14. In the case of Raj Kumar
Verma v. State of U.P, 2013 (80) ACC 231
this court in paragraph No.3 held as
under:-

"The ground for issue of showcause notice, suspension and ultimately
cancellation of the licence is that one and
precisely one criminal case was registered
against
the
petitioner.
The
District
Magistrate has also held that the petitioner
has been enlarged on bail. He has gone
further to observe that if the licence
remained intact, the petitioner, may disturb
public peace and tranquility. The same
findings
have
been
given
by
the
Commissioner, Unmindful of the fact that
this Court is repeating the law of the land,
but the deaf ears of the administrative
officers do not ready to succumb the law of
the land. The settled law is that mere
involvement in a criminal case without any
finding that involvement in such criminal
case shall be detrimental to public peace
and tranquility shall not create the ground
for the cancellation of armed licence. In
Ram Suchi v. Commissioner, Devipatan
Division reported in 2004 (22) LCD 1643,
it was held that this law was relied upon in
Balram Singh Vs. Satate of U.P. 2006 (24)
LCD 1359. Mere apprehension without
substance is simply an opinion which has
no legs to stand. Personal whims are not
1 All. Ram Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
213
allowed to be reflected while acting as a
public servant."

21.
In
Raghuveer
Singh
Vs.
Commissioner and others, 2020 SCC
OnLine All 192 following principles of
law have been laid down regarding
revocation of arm licence:

"(i) Right to hold fire arm licence
granted by the authorities in accordance
with the provisions contained in the Arms
Act, 1959 is a valuable right of an
individual.

(ii) Licencing authority has the
power to suspend or revoke an arm's
licence only if any of the conditions
mentioned in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub
Section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act
exists.

(iii) The provisions of Section 17
of the Act cannot be invoked lightly in an
arbitrary manner.

(iv) The licencing authority has to
satisfy itself if it is necessary for the
security of public peace or for public safety
to suspend or revoke the licence.

(v) Such satisfaction of the
licencing authority must be expressed in
the order and must be based on relevant
material.

(vi) Public peace or public safety
do not mean ordinary disturbance of law
and order. Public safety means safety of the
public at large and not of few persons only.

(vii)
Mere
involvement
or
pendency of a criminal case does not, of its
own, necessarily affect public peace or
public safety. The licencing authority in
each case has to record a finding as to how
and
under
what
circumstances
the
possession of the arm licence is detrimental
to the public peace or public safety.

(viii) On mere apprehension of
misuse of fire arm or that the licencee
would extend threat to the persons of the
weaker section, the arm licence cannot be
cancelled. There must be some positive
incident in which the licencee participated
or used his arm, leading to breach of public
peace or public security.

(ix) After acquittal of the licencee
from the criminal case, the very basis of
cancellation of arm licence is vanished."

22. In this case there is only one
criminal case against the petitioner in which it
is no where mentioned that the petitioner has
used the arm in commission of alleged crime.
There is no counter of the fact that the village
and the area of the petitioner does not fall in
naxali affected area. If the petitioner is
residing in a naxali affected area certainly
there would be need of a licensed arm.
Respondents have not produced any evidence
that the petitioner is having previous criminal
antecedents and is a person of criminal
nature. In the aforementioned judicial
precedents it is ruled that mere pendency of a
case does not create ground to cancel the arm
licence. It is often seen that crimes are not
generally committed by licensed arms but
generally offence are observed to be
committed by use of unlicensed countrymade firearms, therefore, only on the basis of
pendency of one case and apprehension, arm
licence cannot be cancelled.

23. In this case earlier on 10.11.2006 the
operation of the order dated 17.02.1999 and
order of Commissioner dated 06.01.2004
regarding cancellation of petitioner's Licence
No.303P11SBBL Gun No.15868 was stayed
and it was further directed that licence of the
petitioner shall be restored to him pending
disposal of the writ petition. The original
order is as under:-

"In spite of the order passed by
this Court to learned Standing counsel to
214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
file counter affidavit, no counter affidavit
has been filed.

Admit.

Till further orders of this Court,
operation order dated 17.2.1999 passed by
the District Magistrate and order dated
6.1.2004
passed
by
Commissioner,
Varanasi Region, Varanasi in the matter of
cancellation of license of petitioner's
license no. 303P11SBBL Gun no. 15868
shall remain stayed and it is further
directed that license of petitioner shall be
restored to him pending disposal of writ
petition."

24. From the aforementioned order of
this Court it is concluded that the arm
licence of the petitioner still survives and is
continuing. Hence, there is no need to pass
an order to move a fresh application for
grant of revival of licence. This Court is of
the considered view that both the impugned
orders suffer from manifest error in the
eyes of law and are liable to be quashed.

ORDER

25. The petition is allowed. The order
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
Ghazipur/Licencing
Authority
dated
17.02.1999 and the order of Appellate
Authority/Commissioner, Varanasi Region,
Varanasi dated 06.01.2004 are quashed.

26. If the arm licence is into
operation, it shall be continued and shall
be renewed time to time as per the existing
law. If it is discontinued and has not been
renewed, in that case the petitioner shall
move an application before the District
Magistrate, Ghazipur who shall decide the
application of the petitioner in accordance
with the observations made in this
judgment.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 214
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Writ-C No. 9616 of 2022

Dharmpur Sugar Mills Ltd. 241, New Delhi
& Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Rahul Agarwal, Sri Shashi Nandan
(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Sri Aditiya Kumar Singh,
Sri Ayush Garg, Sri K.K. Rao, Sri Rakesh
Pande (Senior Adv.), Sri Ravindra Singh

(A) Civil Law - The Sugarcane (Control)
Order, 1966 - Order 6-A - Restriction on
setting up of two sugar factories within
the radius of 15 kms. , Order 6-B -
Requirements for filing the Industrial
Entrepreneur Memorandum - Order 6-C -
Time
limit
as
to
when
commercial
production had to start etc.
- U.P.
Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and
Purchase) Act, 1953 - Section 2(a) , 2(i) ,
2(n) - "reserved area" - "assigned area" -
"crushing season" , 'bonding policy' -
'reservation order' - "drawl percentage" -
"crushing capacity" - "economic reasons",
The Defence of India Rules, 1962 - Rule
125-B - Declaration of reserved area and
assigned area - The U.P. Sugarcane
(Regulation of Supply and Purchase)
Rules, 1954 - Rule 22

(B) Reserved area and assigned area
allocated to a particular sugar factory -
aspects under consideration - (i) drawl
capacity; (ii) crushing capacity; (iii) past
performance of sugar factory. (Para -39)