# Ranvijay Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 910
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 36646 of 2009
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranvijay-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52540
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

The Arms Act, 1959 - Section 17 -
Suspension and revocation of licences -
A criminal case was registered in which
the
petitioner
was
not
named.
Petitioner was implicated during the
investigation.
The
licence
of
the
petitioner was cancelled merely on the
ground of the pendency of the criminal
case. Subsequently, the criminal case
was
finally
decided,
acquitting the
petitioner
of
the
charges
leveled
against him. Held: Mere pendency of a
criminal case cannot be a ground to
cancel the firearm licence of the licence
holder. In the instant matter, the
Criminal Court honorably acquitted the
petitioner
in
the
aforementioned
criminal case based on the evidence
adduced by the parties. There was no
allegation of the petitioner using the
firearm. As such, the firearm licence of
the petitioner cannot be cancelled on
the ground of the pendency of the
criminal case. Impugned orders were
set aside. The District Magistrate was
directed to restore the firearm licence of
the petitioner. (Para 19)

Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Parshuram (Supra) & Smt Asha Devi
(Supra) as three writ-petitions came before
this Court within period of one week which
is not proper on the part of Election
Tribunal/Prescribed Authority of the State
who are exercising power under Section
12-C of the Act.

18. The notice has not been issued to
respondent Nos. 4 to 17 before setting aside
the impugned order as the electionpetition filed by respondent No.3 has
been allowed under the impugned order
and respondent No.3 is represented by
learned counsel as well as this Court is
remitting back the matter before Election
Tribunal/Prescribed
Authority
where
everybody will be heard.

19. The writ petition stands allowed
and the matter is remitted back before
respondent
no.2/
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate/ Prescribed Authority with a
direction to register the election petition on
its original number and decide the same
afresh on the basis of evidence already
adduced by the parties, considering the law
laid down by this Court in Parshuram
(supra) and Smt. Asha Devi (supra),
expeditiously, preferably within a period of
3 months from the date of production of the
certified copy of the order.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 910
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ C No. 36646 of 2009

Ranvijay Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sunil Singh, Ch. N.A. Khan, Haridwar Singh,
J.N. Mishra, S.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

The Arms Act, 1959 - Section 17 -
Suspension and revocation of licences -
A criminal case was registered in which
the
petitioner
was
not
named.
Petitioner was implicated during the
investigation.
The
licence
of
the
petitioner was cancelled merely on the
ground of the pendency of the criminal
case. Subsequently, the criminal case
was
finally
decided,
acquitting the
petitioner
of
the
charges
leveled
against him. Held: Mere pendency of a
criminal case cannot be a ground to
cancel the firearm licence of the licence
holder. In the instant matter, the
Criminal Court honorably acquitted the
petitioner
in
the
aforementioned
criminal case based on the evidence
adduced by the parties. There was no
allegation of the petitioner using the
firearm. As such, the firearm licence of
the petitioner cannot be cancelled on
the ground of the pendency of the
criminal case. Impugned orders were
set aside. The District Magistrate was
directed to restore the firearm licence of
the petitioner. (Para 19)

Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Prem Vs St. of Uttaranchal & anr. 2002 (2)
J.Cr.C. 32
2. Indrajeet Singh Vs St. of U.P. & 4 Ors 2021 0
Supreme (All) 840
3. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Vs St. of Bihar AIR
1966 SC 740
4. Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs District Magistrate,
Basti & ors. 1978 AWC 122
9 All. Ranvijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
911
5. Channga Prasad Sahu Vs St. of U. P. 1984
(10) AIR 223
6. Kailash Nath & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 1985
(22) ACC 353
7. Rana Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P. 1985
(Supp) ACC 235
8. Sadri Ram Vs District Magistrate Azamgarh &
ors. 1998 (37) ACC 830
9. Vishal Varshney Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2009
(75) ALR 593
10. Suneel Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2020 (113) ACC
1
11. Ram Prasad Vs Commissioner & ors. 2020
(113) 571
12. Ashiq Hussain Vs Commissioner, Moradabad
& ors. in 2009 (10) ADJ 635
13. Mohd. Haroon Vs The District Magistrate,
Siddharth Nagar 2003 (1) ACJ 124
(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Prabhakar
Tripathi,
learned
Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents and
perused the record.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner was granted license No. 982/PII
for DBBL Gun (12 Bore) No.9854/03 in
the year 2003. In the year 2008, a criminal
case was registered under Section 302 IPC,
in which, petitioner was not named. The
aforementioned
criminal
case
was
proceeded and petitioner was implicated
during investigation. On the basis of
aforementioned criminal case u/s 302 IPC,
a show cause notice dated 26.04.2008 was
issued in the name of petitioner and on the
basis of ex-parte order dated 26.12.2008,
licence of the petitioner was cancelled.
Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18
of the Arms Act before the Commissioner,
Varanasi Division Varanasi, and the
Commissioner,
vide
order
dated
03.06.2009, dismissed the appeal, hence,
this writ petition for the following reliefs :-

"I) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
26.12.2008 and 3.6.2009 passed by the
respondent no.2 and 3 (Annexure-2 & 3) to
this writ petition.

II) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
respondent no.2 to grant renewal of the
License no.982/P II DBBL Gun No.12
No.9854/03 of the petitioner for DBBL Gun
for which renewal fee has already been
deposit through treasury challan.

III) Issue any other suitable writ,
order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."

3. This Court vide order dated
24.7.2009 directed the Standing Counsel to
file counter affidavit accordingly, affidavits
are exchanged between the parties.

4. A supplementary affidavit, dated
13.12.2022, has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner annexing the copy of the
judgement
of
Criminal
Court
dated
1.12.2021 passed in S.T. No.272/2008,
under Section 302/34 IPC, by which, the
petitioner has been acquitted in the
aforementioned criminal case.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that petitioner was granted arms licence
according to the procedure prescribed
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the Arms Act and Rules framed
thereunder. He further submitted that
licence of the petitioner has been cancelled,
merely on the ground of pendency of
criminal case, which is also illegal. He
submitted that the aforementioned criminal
case has been finally decided by the
Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the
petitioner from the charges leveled against
him. He further submitted that considering the
evidence adduced in the criminal case as well
as the final judgment passed by the court
concerned it is fully demonstrated that the
petitioner has not used his firearm in the
aforementioned criminal case as such the
ground for cancellation is wholly illegal. He
further submitted that the statement recorded
in the aforementioned criminal case as well as
the final judgment passed in Criminal Case
fully demonstrate that petitioner was falsely
implicated in the aforementioned criminal
case. He placed reliance upon the judgment
reported in 2002 (2) J.Cr.C. 32, Prem vs. State
of Uttaranchal and another in support of his
argument.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhakar
Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents, submitted that the firearm
license of the petitioner was rightly cancelled on
the ground of pendency of criminal case under
Section 302 IPC. He further submitted that
mere acquittal in the aforementioned criminal
case will not amount to restore the firearm
licence of the petitioner. He further submitted
that no interference is required against the
impugned orders and the writ petition is liable
to be dismissed. He placed reliance upon the
judgement of this Court reported in 2021 0
Supreme (All) 840 Indrajeet Singh Vs. State of
U.P. & 4 Ors in support of his arguement.

7. I have considered the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

8. There is no dispute about the facts
that the petitioner was granted firearm
licence in the year 2003.There is also no
dispute about the fact that under the order
of Licensing Authority dated 26.12.2008,
petitioner's arms licence has been cancelled
and the appeal filed by the petitioner has
also been dismissed, vide order dated
03.06.2009. There is also no dispute about
the fact that petitioner has been acquitted in
the Criminal Case vide judgement dated
1.12.2021.

9.
In
order
to
appreciate
the
controversy involved in the matter, the
perusal of Section 17 of the Arms Act will
be relevant, which 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
9 All. Ranvijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
913
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
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."

10. A perusal of sub-section (3) of
Section 17 of the Act would show that
firearm could be suspended or revoked by
the licencing authority on the ground that it
was necessary for public peace or for the
public safety and if any of the condition of
the licence has been contravened.

11. Now it will be appropriate to refer
to the law bearing on the matter.

12. In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Vs.
State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 740, it was
observed that the contravention of law
always affects order but before it could be
said to affect "public order" it must affect
the community or the public at large. One
has to imagine three concentric circles, the
largest representing "law and order", the
next representing "public orders" and the
smallest representing "security of state". An
act may affect "law and order" but not
"public order", just as an act may affect
"public order" but not "security of state".

13. In Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs.
District Magistrate, Basti & Others
914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reported in 1978 AWC 122, a Division
Bench of this Hon'ble Court relaying upon
the earlier decision in Masiuddin Vs.
Commissioner Allahabad reported in
1972 AIR Allahabad 510 held that mere
involvement in criminal case cannot in any
way affect the public security or public
interest and hence an order cancelling or
revoking a firearm licence only on the
ground of licensee's involvement in a
criminal case cannot be sustained.

14. In the matter of Harprasad Vs.
State of U.P. and Others reported in
2005 (52) ACC 226 (Alld) this Court after
considering the law already pronounced on
this point has finally allowed the petition
and quashed the impugned order passed by
the appellate Authority. Relevant paragraph
of this judgment are being quoted here :-

"In full Bench decision of this
Court rendered in Channga Prasad Sahu
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1984 (10) AIR
223 and Kailash Nath and Others Vs.
Sate of U.P. and Others 1985 (22) ACC
353 and in the case of Rana Pratap Singh
Vs. State of U.P. 1985 (Supp) ACC 235, it
has been held that mere pendency of the
Criminal
case(s)
is
no
ground
for
cancellation of arms licence. The full
Bench decision of Channga Prasad Sahu
was also considered in Sadri Ram Vs.
District
Magistrate
Azamgarh
and
Others 1998 (37) ACC 830".

15. In Vishal Varshney Vs. State of
U.P. and Others reported in 2009 (75)
ALR 593, this Court held that cancellation
of the firearm licence only on the ground of
apprehension or likelihood of misuse of
firearm by the licence is illegal.

16. In a recent decision which was
cited by counsel for the petitioner in the
case of Suneel Vs. State of U.P. and
Others reported in 2020 (113) ACC 1 and
Ram Prasad Vs. Commissioner and
Others reported in 2020 (113) 571, this
Court held that mere involvement in
criminal case is no ground for cancellation
of
licensee's
firearm
as
well
as
apprehension of abuse of arms is not a
sufficient ground for passing of an order of
cancellation of licence under Section 17 of
the Act. It has also been held that in a
pending criminal case against the licence if
acquittal has been ordered by criminal
Court
then
the
very
basis
of
the
cancellation of arm licence will vanish.

17.
In
Ashiq
Hussain
Vs.
Commissioner, Moradabad & Others
reported in 2009 (10) ADJ 635, this Court
has held as under:

"6. The mere involvement in a
solitary criminal case cannot be a ground
for cancellation of a firearm license as held
by this Court in case of Mohd. Haroon Vs.
The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar
reported in 2003 (1) ACJ 124, unless and
until it is shown on the basis of material on
record that there was grave danger to public
law and order. In the instant case it is only
a solitary incident, which was not arising
out of any disturbance of law and order,
that has been made the basis for ordering
cancellation."

18. The perusal of relevant portion of
the judgement of Criminal Court will be
necessary which is an under:-

न्यायालय्‌ अपर्‌ सत्र्‌ न्यायाधीश
र्ास्ट्‌ ट्रैक्‌ कोटफ-II, गाजीपुर।
उपजस्थतः्‌ श्री्‌ दुगेश, (एच.जे.एस)
(ननणफय्‌ का्‌ ददनाांकः्‌ 01.12.2021)
9 All. Ranvijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
915
(सत्र्‌ परीक्षण्‌ सांख्या्‌ 272/2008)
सी.एन.आर.नां.्‌ यू.पी.्‌ जी.एच.-01-0006302008
एवां
(सत्र्‌ परीक्षण्‌ सांख्या्‌ 162/2011)
सी.एन.आर.नां.्‌ यू.पी.्‌ जी.एच.-01-0014212011
(अपराध्‌ सांख्या-12/2008,
धारा-्‌ 302/34्‌ भा०दांज०सां०,
थाना-करण्डा,
जनपद-्‌ गाजीपुर)

पररवादी
उत्तर्‌ प्रदेश्‌ राज्य
प्रनतननगधत्व
श्री्‌
अखखलेश्‌
कुमार्‌
शसांह,
सहायक्‌
जजला्‌
शासकीय्‌
अगधवक्ता्‌
(दाजण्डक)
अशभयुक्तगण
1. पवशाल्‌
यादव्‌
पुत्र्‌
पवनोद्‌ यादव,
2. बट्टन्‌
उर्फ्‌
रण्‌
पवजय्‌ शसांह्‌ पुत्र्‌ स्व०्‌
महेन्र्‌ प्रताप्‌ शसांह,
ननवासीगण्‌
ग्राम्‌
करण्डा, थाना्‌
करण्डा,
जनपद्‌ गाजीपुर।
घटना्‌ की्‌ नतगथ
15.01.2008्‌
से्‌
17.01.2008्‌ के्‌ मध्य
प्रथम्‌
सूचना्‌
अांककत्‌ ककये्‌ जाने्‌
की्‌ नतगथ
17.01.2008
आरोप्‌
पत्र्‌
प्रेपित्‌
ककये्‌
जाने्‌
की्‌
नतगथ
02.04.2008
आरोप्‌
पवरगचत्‌
ककये्‌
जाने्‌
की्‌
नतगथ
05.08.2008 (अशभयुक्त्‌
पवशाल्‌ यादव)
30.01.2013 (अशभयुक्त्‌
बट्टन्‌ उर्फ्‌ रण्‌ पवजय्‌
शसांह)
साक्ष्य्‌
प्रस्तुत्‌
करने्‌ की्‌ नतगथ
29.08.2012
ननणफय्‌ की्‌ नतगथ
01.12.2021
दण्डादेश्‌ की्‌ नतगथ्‌
(यदद्‌ कोई्‌ हो)
01.12.2021

----------------------------------------------------
--------

च.्‌
जहााँ्‌
तक्‌
अन्य्‌
अशभयुक्त्‌
बट्टन्‌ उर्फ्‌ रण्‌ पवजय्‌ शसांह्‌ की्‌ भूशमका्‌ का्‌
प्रश्न्‌ है, उसके्‌ सांबांध्‌ में्‌ पत्रावली्‌ पर्‌ ऐसा्‌
कोई्‌
ननणाफयक्‌
साक्ष्य्‌
उपलब्ध्‌
नहीां्‌
है।्‌
पी.डब्लू.्‌ 2्‌ श्री्‌ अमरनाथ्‌ दूबे्‌ एवां्‌ पीडब्लू.्‌ 5्‌
श्रीमती्‌ सपवता्‌ दूबे्‌ द्वारा्‌ अपने्‌ पररसाक्ष्य्‌
में्‌ यह्‌ अशभकथन्‌ ककया्‌ गया्‌ है्‌ कक्‌ उसके्‌
पुत्र्‌ की्‌ दोस्ती्‌ बट्टन्‌ उर्फ्‌ रण्‌ पवजय्‌ शसांह्‌
से्‌ नहीां्‌ थी।्‌ इसी्‌ प्रकार्‌ स्वयां्‌ पवशाल्‌ यादव्‌
का्‌
भी्‌
अपने्‌
बयान्‌
अांतगफत्‌
धारा्‌
313्‌
दां०प्र०सां०्‌
में्‌
यह्‌
अशभकथन्‌
है्‌
कक्‌
वह्‌
बट्टन्‌ शसांह्‌ को्‌ नहीां्‌ जानता्‌ था।्‌ पत्रावली्‌
पर्‌ अशभयुक्त्‌ बट्टन्‌ उर्फ्‌
रण्‌ पवजय्‌ शसांह्‌
के्‌ पवरुद्ध्‌ प्रत्यक्ष्‌ अथवा्‌ अप्रत्यक्ष्‌ साक्ष्य्‌
उपलब्ध्‌ नहीां्‌ है।्‌ पववेचक्‌ द्वारा्‌ भी्‌ स्पष्ट्‌
916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
नहीां्‌
ककया्‌
गया्‌
है्‌
कक्‌
ककन्‌
साक्ष्यों्‌
के्‌
आधार्‌
पर्‌
उसके्‌
पवरुद्ध्‌
आरोपत्र्‌
प्रेपित्‌
ककया्‌ गया्‌ है।

----------------------------------------------------

आदेश

44. अशभयुक्त्‌
बट्टन्‌
उर्फ्‌
रण्‌
पवजय्‌ शसांह्‌ को्‌ भा०दां०सां०्‌ की्‌ धारा्‌ 302/34्‌
के्‌ अांतगफत्‌ लगाये्‌ गये्‌ आरोप्‌ से्‌ दोि-मुक्त्‌
ककया्‌ जाता्‌ है।्‌ अशभयुक्त्‌ जमानत्‌ पर्‌ है।्‌
उसके्‌ जमानत्‌ प्रपत्र्‌ ननरस्त्‌ ककये्‌ जाते्‌ हैं्‌
तथा्‌
प्रनतभूओां्‌
को्‌
उसके्‌
दानयत्व्‌
से्‌
उन्मोगचत्‌ ककया्‌ जाता्‌ है।्‌ अशभयुक्त्‌ एक्‌
सप्ताह्‌ के्‌ अन्दर्‌ दां०प्र०सां०्‌ की्‌ धारा्‌ 437ए्‌
का्‌ अनुपालन्‌ सुननजश्चत्‌ करे।

45. अशभयुक्त्‌ पवशाल्‌ यादव्‌ को्‌
भा०दां०सां०्‌ की्‌ धारा्‌ 302्‌ के्‌ अांतगफत्‌ लगाये्‌
गये्‌ आरोप्‌ से्‌ दोि-शसद्ध्‌ ककया्‌ जाता्‌ है।्‌
अशभयुक्त्‌ जमानत्‌ पर्‌ है।्‌ उसके्‌ जमानत्‌
प्रपत्र्‌ ननरस्त्‌ ककये्‌ जाते्‌ हैं्‌ तथा्‌ प्रनतभूओां्‌
को्‌ उसके्‌ दानयत्व्‌ से्‌ उन्मोगचत्‌ ककया्‌ जाता्‌
है।

46. दोि-शसद्ध्‌ पवशाल्‌ यादव्‌ को्‌
न्यानयक्‌ अशभरक्षा्‌ में्‌ शलया्‌ जाये।्‌ पत्रावली्‌
मध्यान्तर्‌ दण्ड्‌ के्‌ प्रश्न्‌ पर्‌ सुनवाई्‌ हेतु्‌
प्रस्तुत्‌ हो।

ददनाांककत्‌ 01.12.2021

(दुगेश),
जे.ओ.कोड्‌ यू.पी.्‌ 1626,
अपर्‌ सत्र्‌ न्यायाधीश/
एर्.टी.सी.-्‌ II, गाजीपुर।

19. This Court has held from time to
time that mere pendency of criminal case
cannot be a ground to cancel the firearm
licence of the licence holder. In the instant
matter, the Criminal Court has fully
acquitted
the
petitioner
in
the
aforementioned criminal case on the basis
of evidence adduced by the parties. The
perusal of the judgment and evidence
adduced
in
the
criminal
case
fully
demonstrate that there is no allegation of
using the firearm by the petitioner as such
the firearm licence of the petitioner cannot
be cancelled on the ground of pendency of
criminal case, in which, the criminal court
has found that the allegation against the
petitioner is not proved.

20. The caselaw cited by learned
Counsel for the state shall not be applicable
in the instant matter as the acquittal of
petitioner in criminal case is honorable
acquittal.

21.
Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the impugned
orders dated 26.12.2008 and 03.06.2009 are
liable to be set aside and the same are
hereby set aside.

22. Writ petition stands allowed and
respondent
no.2/District
Magistrate,
Ghazipur, is directed to restore the firearm
licence of the petitioner after calling the
necessary report from the authorities
concerned within a period of two months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order before him.

23. No order as to Costs.
----------
9 All. Ram Lakhan Harshit Vs. D.M. Lucknow & Ors.
917
(2024) 9 ILRA 917
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 1000219 of 2006

Ram Lakhan Harshit ...Petitioner
Versus
D.M. Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
B.R. Singh, Devashish Bhatt, Mukesh
Kumar, Rakshit Raj Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 -
Surcharge - Sections 27 - U. P. Panchayat
Raj Rules, 1947- Rule 256 - Inquiry - Rule
256 of the Rules of 1947 provides that the
Chief Audit Officer, Cooperative Societies
and Panchayats will be the competent
authority for making an inquiry. The inquiry
committee consisting of Chief Development
Officer,
Executive
Engineer,
Rural
Engineering Service and District Panchayat
Raj Officer had no jurisdiction to hold an
inquiry. The entire proceedings was initiated
by an authority, which had no jurisdiction as
per the provisions contained in the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Rules. Surcharge can only be
fixed in accordance with the procedure
prescribed and not otherwise. It is well
settled law that where the law prescribes a
procedure for doing a thing, the thing has to
be done in that manner alone and other
modes of doing the thing are necessarily
forbidden. (Para 24, 25)
B. Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 -
U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947- Rule 256 -
Surcharge- Section 27- Rule 256 of the
Rules of 1947- Samagra Gram - procedure
for holding an inquiry in respect of any
illegality committed by a Pradhan of a
Samagra Gram is provided in Government
Order dated 22.12.2004. Held : Procedure
prescribed by the Rules 256 and 257 of the
Panchayat Raj Rules cannot be superseded
by the provisions of any Government Order.
Section 2 (p) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act,
1947 does not include the procedure
prescribed by any Government Order and in
the hierarchy of laws, the Government
Orders stand much below the Rules and the
provisions contained in a Government Order
cannot override the provisions contained in
any Rule (Para 20)
C. By the impugned order the District
Magistrate ordered Rs.2,55,106/- to be
recovered from the petitioner/Pradhan .
Held : District Magistrate has not referred
that the petitioner had demanded copies
of the relevant documents to enable him
to
submit
his
explanation.
District
Magistrate

held
the
petitionerguilty
merely because the petitioner failed to
give a satisfactory explanation of the
allegations against him, without even
referring to the material to hold the
petitioner guilty. It is settled law that an
authority proposing to take an adverse
action against any person has to record a
satisfaction
regarding
his
guilt
in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
law and the person cannot be penalized
merely for the reason that he failed to
defend himself. In the present case the
impugned order was passed without
jurisdiction
and
in
violation
of
the
principles of natural justice. Order passed
by
the
District
Magistrate,
directing
recovery from the petitioner u/s 27 (2) of
the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act quashed (Para
27, 28)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Dinesh Kumar Vs St. of U.P., 2022 SCC
OnLine All 861 = AIR 2023 All 26
2. Ram Vilas Vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan
Mandal, Gonda & ors.: 2022 (1) ADJ 1.