# Sanjay Pratap Singh v. The Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 211
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-02-18
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 170 of 1997
- **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. R.K. Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-pratap-singh-v-the-consolidation-commissioner-lucknow-and-others-39796
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

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

## Text

1All] Sanjay Pratap Singh V. The Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow and others
211
correctness of the ratio laid down in the
case of Prem Chand Pachit may be
decided in some other appropriate case
and occasion.

19. In the cases of Smt. Sughra
Begum, Smt. Ved Rani Diwan and M.M.
Quasim (supra) this Court held that an
agent or such other person cannot
maintain release application under section
21 (1)(a) of the Act. The facts of the
above cases are clearly distinguishable
from the facts of the case in hand. In the
present case in hand. Kunj Behari Tewari,
who
filed
release
application
was
authorized to realize rent as land lord and
thus his status as the owner/landlord of
the accommodation, as already discussed
above, cannot be questioned or assailed in
the present proceedings.

No other point has been raised or
pressed.

The writ petition fails and dismissed
in limine.

No order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.2.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 170 of 1997

Sanjay Pratap Singh

...Appellant
Versus
The
Consolidation
Commissioner,
Lucknow and others
...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mr. Ravindra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Ran Vijay Singh

Constitution
of
India,
Article
14-
Discrimination- claim for compassionate
appointment on the Post of Consolidatorauthorities offered appointment on the
post of clerk while those claimants with
lesser qualification appointed on the
post of consolidator-held action on the
part
of
State
Government
amounts
discrimination- direction issued to give
appointment on the post of Consolidator.

Held- Para 4

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
provisions 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
port of the State Government amounts of
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 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.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Sen, C.J.)

1. Heard Sri Ravindra Singh learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Ran
Vijay Singh, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents.
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