# Santosh Kumar v. D.D.C. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 193
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-02-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6000 of 2012
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-v-d-d-c-and-others-42091
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

1 All] Santosh Kumar V. D.D.C. and others

193
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02..012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6000 of 2012

Santosh Kumar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. and Others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava
Sri R.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri J.N. Singh
Sri Arimardan Singh
C.S.C.
Sri Rajendra Prasad

U.P. Consolidation of Holding ActSection 48-revision-against the order
of S.O.C. By which without condoning
44 years delay-restored the Appealfixed for ex-parte order-petitioner filed
revision in which date 30-12-2011
fixes-in between on medical ground of
respondent on 28.12.2011 not only
dismissed the revision behind the back
of petitioner but allowed the Appeal
itself-held-against canons of Law-not
sustainable-quashed

Held: Para 8

On a perusal of the documents on
record and the order-sheet, it is more
than
transparent
that
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
has
committed a serious error and also as
what
can
be
termed
as
judicial
impropriety by preponing the date
immediately before retirement on the
application moved by the respondents
who
are
also
respondents
in
the
revision. Not only this, even assuming
for the sake of argument that the
Deputy Director of Consolidation could
have proceeded to decide the matter,
at the best if there was anything
adverse against the petitioner, their
revision could have been dismissed and
nothing
beyond
that.
The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
has
accommodated a double benefit to the
respondents by virtually allowing the
pending appeal on merits as well. The
order
is,
therefore,
absolutely
unsustainable being against the settled
canons of law inasmuch as, justice
should not only be done, but should
also seem to have been done.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A. P. Sahi,J. )

1. Heard Sri R.K. Pandey along
with Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Rajendra
Prasad
Singh
and
Sri
Arimardan
Singh
for
contesting
respondent Nos.4 to 11 and the learned
Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1
and 2.

2. This is a peculiar case where the
allegation against the Deputy Director
of Consolidation is that he has stepped
out of the crease of his jurisdiction and
has flogged the ball of justice outside
the boundaries defined in law. The
submission is that the Deputy Director
of Consolidation has definitely passed
this order for extraneous considerations
when he was about to retire on
31.12.2011.

3. An order came to be passed by
the Consolidation Officer in favour of
the
petitioner
on
23.8.1966.
The
respondents filed a heavily time barred
appeal against the said order after 44
years on 16.2.2010. The delay was not
condoned and the appeal remained
pending when it came to be dismissed in
default on 7.10.2010. The respondents
194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

on the very next day filed a restoration
application without intimation to the
petitioner and the said restoration was
allowed on the same day.

4. The contention of Sri Pandey is
that the petitioner had no notice or
knowledge of the alleged proceeding of
restoration and the appeal, after being
restored, was fixed for hearing on
21.4.2011. On that date, the appeal
came to fixed for delivery of orders on
29.4.2011. At this stage, the petitioner,
on coming to know of these ex-parte
proceedings, filed a revision where the
date was fixed for 30.12.2011.

5. It is thereafter that the story
takes the peculiar turn giving rise to the
present petition. The respondents moved
an application for preponing the date of
revision
on
the
ground
that
the
respondent in the revision had to
proceed for his medical treatment. The
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
preponed the date for 28.12.2011 and by
the impugned order dated 28.12.2011
has not only dismissed the revision filed
by the petitioners but has also allowed
the appeal on merits filed by the
respondents.

6. Sri Pandey submits that this
strange procedure clearly smacks of
mala fides and is an order without
jurisdiction.

7. Learned counsel for the
respondents submits that they do not
propose to file any counter-affidavit at
this stage and the matter be disposed of
finally on the basis of material already
on record.

8. On a perusal of the documents
on record and the order-sheet, it is more
than
transparent
that
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
has
committed a serious error and also as
what
can
be
termed
as
judicial
impropriety by preponing the date
immediately before retirement on the
application moved by the respondents
who are also respondents in the
revision. Not only this, even assuming
for the sake of argument that the Deputy
Director of Consolidation could have
proceeded to decide the matter, at the
best if there was anything adverse
against the petitioner, their revision
could have been dismissed and nothing
beyond that. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation has accommodated a
double benefit to the respondents by
virtually allowing the pending appeal on
merits as well. The order is, therefore,
absolutely unsustainable being against
the settled canons of law inasmuch as,
justice should not only be done, but
should also seem to have been done.

9. The writ petition is allowed and
the order dated 28.12.2011 is quashed.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation
shall now decide the revision afresh
within 2 months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this
order before him.
---------
1 All] Ayodhya Prasad V. Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow and another

195
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH,J.

Misc. Single No. - 6179 of 2011

Ayodhya Prasad

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner
Lucknow
Division
Lucknow and another
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Alok Kumar Shukla
Sri V.S. Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Arms Act-Section 13-Refusal of licensenon disclosure of name of anti social
element-virtually inviting trouble and
direct conflict with those anti social
elements-in
absence
of
guaranteed
social security as well as of life and
liberty-rejection
on
flimsy
groundignoring favorable reports by Tehsil
authorities
as
well
as
Police-order
suffers from serious perversity-appellant
authority
also-based
on
mechanical
consideration-held-orders
impugned
quashed-direction
for
fresh
consideration given.

Held: Para 4

Arm licence is granted not only in the
event of threat perception from certain
person but it may be granted with the
possible threat perception. In case a
person's status, nature of job, movement
and social life is such that he can be
assaulted by some one or he may suffer
untoward
incident
from
anti-sicial
elements, then in such a situation, he or
she shall be entitled for grant of arm
licence. It is not necessary that while
moving application, the citizen should
indicate the name of the person from
whom
he/she
may
suffer
injury.
Indication of such fact or the name of
the person from whom, the citizen may
suffer injury shall amount to invite
trouble and direct conflict with antisocial elements. We may take judicial
notice of the fact that the crime in the
society is rising day to day and the police
has been failed to provide reasonable
protection to citizens. It is not necessary
that life and liberty of every citizen may
be secured by the police. Accordingly, in
absence of guaranteed social security or
security of life and liberty of the citizen,
the citizen may move application for
grant of arm licence. Statutory right
conferred by the Arms Act cannot be
taken away on flimsy ground or on
presumption . Unless a citizen has got
some
bad
antecedent
or
there
is
possibility with regard to involvement in
crime or abuse of weapon, the arm
licence should not be refused more so
when the government is not in a position
to provide security to the citizens on
individual
basis.
Thus,
the
reason
assigned
by
the
District
Magistrate
refusing the grant of licence does not
seem to be sustainable and suffers from
vice
of
arbitrariness.
The
appellate
authority
has
decided
the
appeal
mechanically by reiterating the finding
recorded by the District Magistrate and
has not applied his mind with regard to
justifiability of the order passed by the
Collector
rejecting
the
petitioner's
application.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
With the consent of the parties' counsel,
the writ petition is being finally disposed
of at admission stage.

2. The petitioner has applied for
grant of arm licence which has been
rejected by the District Magistrate,
Lucknow by the impugned order dated