# Smt. Nahida Fatima @ Naheed Fatima v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 1150
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-23
- **Case number:** Writ-C No.9400 of 2021
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-nahida-fatima-naheed-fatima-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47619
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - The Arms Act, 1959 -
Section 17(3) - Cancellation of Arm
Licence - licensing authority may suspend
a licence or revoke a licence arm license, if
necessary for the security of the public
peace
or
for
public
safety
-
while
cancelling
a
licence,
the
District
Magistrate
acts
as
a
quasi-judicial
authority therefore the District Magistrate
must record the finding as to how and
under what circumstance, the possession
of arms licence by the petitioner, is
detrimental to the public peace or the
public
security
and
safety
-
mere
involvement in a criminal case or mere
pendency of criminal case or apprehension
of abuse of Arms Act, are not sufficient
ground for passing of the order of
suspension or revocation of licence - 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 (Para 15, 16, 17)

B. Criminal Law - The Arms Act, 1959 -
Cancellation of Arm Licence - Petitioner
was granted Arms License - she never
misused the arm nor was she involved in
any offence of criminal nature - An
incident of murder took place, in which
some of the family members of the
petitioner including her husband were
implicated
-
her
Arm
License
was
cancelled
due
to
apprehensions
of
potential misuse by her husband and
brother-in-law - subsequently cause for
cancellation, ended since the husband of
the
petitioner
was
acquitted
in the
criminal case whereas the brother-in-law
was no more - Impugned orders set aside
(Para 18, 20)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applications and not to suits and therefore
has no play. When the rule making
authority has provided different periods of
limitation for different classes of suits it
would
be
treated
that
provisions
prescribing period of limitation in the
Limitation Act would not be applicable to
suits under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Section 189 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act sets out
the circumstances in which the interest of a
bhumidar is extinguished. Clauses (a), (aa)
and (b) relate to cases where the bhumidar
dies leaving no heir, or where he has let
out his holding in contravention of the
provisions of the Act or where the land is
acquired. Sub-section (c) of Section 189
provides that where a bhumidar has lostpossession the bhumidari right would
extinguish when the right to recover
possession is lost. In Ram Naresh v. Board
of Revenue 1985 Rev Dec. 444 relied upon
by Sri R.C. Singh it was held that the
provisions of Section 27 of the Limitation
Act would be attracted to suits instituted
under Section 229-B. Section 27 provides
that on the determination of the period
limited for instituting a suit for possession
the right to such property shall be
extinguished. The rule is an exception to
the general rule that limitation bars the
remedy but does not extinguish the right. If,
however, a person is in possession his right
can not be extinguished unless the case is
covered by Clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of
Section 189. He can therefore seek a
declaration of his right at any point of time.
If a person has been dispossessed he would
have to institute a suit under Section 129
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Appendix III provides
the period for limitation for filing a suit
under Section 209. It would follow
therefore that a suit under Section 229-B
would be barred by limitation the bhumidar
is out of possession and his right to file a
suit under Section 209 is barred by
limitation. The finding of fact recorded on
the question of possession is that the
plaintiffs have established their continuous
possession over the disputed land. The
finding is not shown to be vitiated by any
error. As the rights of the plaintiff were
never extinguished no question of limitation
arises. For the reasons given above the
writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed."

17. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances, as well as ratio of law laid down
by this Court as well as by Apex Court, the
judgment passed by Board of Revenue dated
28.12.1988 allowing the second appeal of
contesting respondent and dismissing the
plaintiff's suit for co-tenancy right for 1⁄2 share,
cannot be sustained in the eye of law, accordingly,
impugned judgment dated 28.12.1988 passed by
Board of Revenue, Allahabad (Annexure 5 to the
writ petition) is liable to be set aside and the same
is hereby set aside.

18. The writ petition stands allowed.

19. The judgment of the First
Appellate Court dated 14.10.1977 passed
by
Additinal
Commissioner,
Varanasi
Division, Varanasi is hereby affirmed.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 1150
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-C No.9400 of 2021

Smt. Nahida Fatima @ Naheed Fatima
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
3 All. Smt. Nahida Fatima @ Naheed Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1151
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tanzeel Ahmad, Sri Saumitra Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Criminal Law - The Arms Act, 1959 -
Section 17(3) - Cancellation of Arm
Licence - licensing authority may suspend
a licence or revoke a licence arm license, if
necessary for the security of the public
peace
or
for
public
safety
-
while
cancelling
a
licence,
the
District
Magistrate
acts
as
a
quasi-judicial
authority therefore the District Magistrate
must record the finding as to how and
under what circumstance, the possession
of arms licence by the petitioner, is
detrimental to the public peace or the
public
security
and
safety
-
mere
involvement in a criminal case or mere
pendency of criminal case or apprehension
of abuse of Arms Act, are not sufficient
ground for passing of the order of
suspension or revocation of licence - 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 (Para 15, 16, 17)

B. Criminal Law - The Arms Act, 1959 -
Cancellation of Arm Licence - Petitioner
was granted Arms License - she never
misused the arm nor was she involved in
any offence of criminal nature - An
incident of murder took place, in which
some of the family members of the
petitioner including her husband were
implicated
-
her
Arm
License
was
cancelled
due
to
apprehensions
of
potential misuse by her husband and
brother-in-law - subsequently cause for
cancellation, ended since the husband of
the
petitioner
was
acquitted
in the
criminal case whereas the brother-in-law
was no more - Impugned orders set aside
(Para 18, 20)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Murti Madhukar Vs D. M., Sitapur 1998
(16) LCD-905

2. Ram Karpal Singh Vs Commissioner, Devi
Patan Mandal, Gonda & ors. 2006 (24) LCD 114

3. Ram Prasad Vs Commissioner & ors. dated
07.02.2020

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Shri Tanzeel Ahmad,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present petition inter-alia with the prayer to
quash the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by
the
Commissioner
Bareilly
Division
Bareilly in Appeal No. 00614 of 2018 filed
under Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act,
1959 as well as the order dated 22.03.2018
passed by the District Magistrate, Badaun
in Case No. 08 of 2014 under Section 17-
(3) of the Act of 1959.

3. Though time was granted to the
learned Standing Counsel to file counter
affidavit vide order dated 18.03.2021 but
till date no counter affidavit has been filed.

4. Today when the matter is taken up,
it is argued by the learned Standing
Counsel that since pure questions of law is
involved in the present case, writ petition
could be decided on merits even in the
absence of the counter affidavit.

5. Facts in brief as contained in the
writ petition are that the petitioner was
granted an Arms License in the year 2004
and she never misused the aforesaid arm at
any point of time as well as she was never
involved in any offence of criminal nature
whatsoever. On 03.11.2013 an incident of
murder had taken place at Mohalla
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Khandsari, Police Station-Kotwali, DistrictBadaun and in this regard a report was
lodged against the unknown persons by one
Harish which was registered as Case Crime
No. 980 of 2013 under section 452, 302
IPC of Police Station-Kotwali, DistrictBudaun.

6. During the investigation some of
the family members of the petitioner
including her husband has been falsely
implicated in the said offence. Pursuant to
the aforesaid, the petitioner was directed to
deposit her fire arm in the police station,
which was duly deposited by her on
21.11.2013 . It is further stated that in the
Session Trial No. 86 of 2014 arising out of
Crime No. 980 of 2013 under Section 452,
302/34 and 302/120-B IPC, the husband of
the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial
court.

7. In view of the aforesaid, a case was
registered against the petitioner under Section
17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959. Immediately
thereafter vide order dated 27.12.2013 the
Arms
License
of
the
petitioner
was
suspended and a show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner in this regard that why
her Arm License should not be cancelled.
The petitioner duly submitted her reply /
objections on 06.03.2014 to the aforesaid
show cause notice. Thereafter upon the
aforementioned reply of the petitioner,
another documentary rebuttal on behalf of the
S.S.P., Badaun through S.H.O., Kotwali,
District-Badaun was filed in the Court of
District Magistrate on 05.08.2014. Thereafter
the fire arm license of the petitioner was
cancelled by the District Magistrate, Badaun
vide order dated 23.02.2018.

8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, a
statutory appeal was filed by the petitioner
before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division,
Bareilly as provided under Section 18 of the
Act, 1959 being Appeal No. 00614 of 2018.
It is argued that various grounds were taken
in the appeal but without considering the
same, the order dated 01.11.2019 was passed
by the Commissioner rejecting the appeal
filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved against the
aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred the
present petition.

9. It is argued by Shri Tanzeel Ahmad,
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
cause for cancellation of the arm license of
the petitioner has now been ended since the
husband of the petitioner has been acquitted
in the said criminal case whereas the brotherin-law (devar) of the petitioner is also no
more. It is further argued that both the orders
namely the order passed by the District
Magistrate cancelling the arm license of the
petitioner as well as the order passed by the
Commissioner of the Division rejecting the
appeal filed by the petitioner are absolutely
illegal and both are liable to be set aside. It is
further argued that law is well settled that if
some relative of the license holder is involved
in any offence, the same cannot be a ground
for cancellation of the arm license.

10. On the other hand, it is argued by
the learned Standing Counsel that since the
family members of the petitioner are involved
in criminal cases, license of the petitioner was
rightly cancelled. It is further argued that the
cogent reasons were given by the authorities
while cancelling the license of the petitioner,
hence it is argued that the present petition
filed by the petitioner is on baseless ground
and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. Heard counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

12. It appears from perusal of the
record that the arm license of the petitioner
3 All. Smt. Nahida Fatima @ Naheed Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1153
was cancelled by the District Magistrate
vide its order dated 22.03.2018, appeal
filed against the said order was also
rejected vide order dated 01.11.2019 and
both orders were passed by the authorities
against the petitioner mainly on the ground
that the family members of the petitioner
are having criminal antecedents.

13. Law in this connection is well
settled that arm license cannot be cancelled
only on the ground of apprehension. It is also
settled law that in case of pendency of the
criminal cases arm license cannot be
cancelled. A complete procedure in this
regard has been provided under Section 17 of
the Arms Act, 1959 which reads as follows:-

Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959,
deals
with
variation,
suspension
and
revocation of the fire arm licence. Section 17
is reproduced 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
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
therefore 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
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

14. A bare reading of Section 17 (3)
of the Arms Act makes it evident that the
licensing authority may by order in writing
suspend a licence for such period as he
things fit or revoke a license; (b) if the
licencing authority deems it necessary for
the security of public peace or for public
safety to suspend or revoke the license.
These two expressions "Security of public
peace" and "for public safety" are of utmost
importance. The licensing authority must
be satisfied of the existence of these pre
conditions."

15. Law in this connection is also well
settled as has been held in the series of
cases by this Court from time to time. In
the case of Ram Murti Madhukar vs.
District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 (16)
LCD-905], this Court has held in paragraph
no. 8 as under :-

"(8) It is also well settled in law
that mere pendency of criminal case or
apprehension of abuse of Arms Act, are not
sufficient ground for passing of the order of
suspension or revocation of licence under
Section 17 of the Act. A reference in this
regard may be made to the decisions of this
Court in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. D. M.
Almora, AIR 1993 All 291"

16. In the case of Ram Karpal Singh
vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal,
Gonda and Ors. [2006 (24) LCD 114],
this Court has held as following in
paragraph nos. 6 and 7, which are being
reproduced hereunder:-

"6, Learned counsel for the
petitioner
had
relied
upon
the
two
judgments of this Court reported in 2002
ACC; Habib v. State of U.P.

7. Para 3 of the said judgment is
reproduced as under:

"Para 3: The question as to
whether mere involvement in a criminal
case or pendency of a criminal case can be
a ground for revocation of the license
under Arrns Act, has been deal with by a
3 All. Smt. Nahida Fatima @ Naheed Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1155
Division Bench in this Court reported in
Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District
Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the
Division Bench relying upon the earlier
decision
reported
in
Mai Uddin
v.
Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere
involvement in criminal case cannot be in
any way affect the public security or public
interest and the order canceling or
revoking the .licence of fire arm has been
set aside. The present impugned order also
suffers from the same infirmity as was
pointed out by the Division Bench in the
above mentioned cases. I am in full
agreement with the view taken by the
Division Bench that these orders cannot be
sustained and deserve to be quashed and
are hereby quashed."

17. This Court in the case of Ram
Prasad vs. Commissioner and Ors.
decided on 07.02.2020 has held as under.
Relevant paragraphs of the said judgments
i.e. 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 32 and 36 are
being quoted hereunder:-

"16. The matter which requires
consideration is, whether on the ground of
pendency
of
the
criminal
case
the
petitioner's fire arm licence could be
cancelled
and
his
appeal
could
be
dismissed, notwithstanding his acquittal on
17.1.2003. It also requires consideration if
the ground in the impugned orders that if
the petitioner's fire arm licence remain with
the petitioner, it would not be in the public
interest and public security, are justified for
cancellation and based on substantial
material."

19.

In
Masiuddin
Vs.
Commissioner,
Allahabad
Division,
Allahabad and another reported in 1972
A.L.J. 573 this Court held in paragraph
Nos. 4 and 7 as under:

"4. After a license is granted, the
right to hold the license and possess a gun
is a valuable individual right in a free
country. The security of public peace and
public safety is a valuable social interest.
Section 17 shows that Parliament had
decided that neither of the two valuable
interests should unduly impinge on the
other Section 17 seeks to establish a fair
equilibrium between the two contending
interests. It says: Hear the licensee first;
and then cancel the license "if necessary
for the security of the public peace or for
public safety". True, there is no express
provision for hearing. But the nature of the
right affected, the language of Sec. 17, the
grounds for cancellation, the requirement
of a reasoned order and the right of appeal
plainly implicate a fair hearing procedure.
Jai Narain Rai v. District Magistrate,
Azamgarh. While cancelling a licence, the
District Magistrate acts as a quasi-judicial
authority.

7. 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. The
District Magistrate has not recorded a
finding that it was necessary for the
security of the public peace or for public
safety to revoke the license. The mere
existence of enmity between a licensee and
another person would not establish the
''necessary' connection with security of
public peace or public safety. There should
be something more than mere enmity.
There should be some evidence of the
provocative utterances of the licensee or of
his suspicious movements or of his criminal
designs and conspiracy in reinforcement of
the evidence of enmity. It is not possible to
give an exhaustive list of facts and
circumstances from which an inference of
threat to public security or public peace
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
may be deduced. The District Magistrate
will have to take a decision on the facts of
each case. But in the instant case there is
nothing in his order to indicate that it was
necessary for the security of the public
peace or for public safety to cancel the
license of the petitioner. Mere enmity is not
sufficient."

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

"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."

In paragraph-9 it has been
emphasised as under:-

"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"

23.
In
Ilam
Singh
v.
Commissioner, Meerut Division and others
[1987 ALL. L.J. 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 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 sfety
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
3 All. Smt. Nahida Fatima @ Naheed Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1157
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."

24. In Habib v. State of U.P. and
others [2002 (44) ACC 783] this Court
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. Paragraph 3 of this
judgment reads as under:

"3. The question as to whether
mere involvement in a criminal case or
pendency of a criminal case can be a
ground for revocation of the licence under
Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division
Bench of this court reported in Sheo
Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate,
Basti and others, wherein the Division
Bench relying upon the earlier decision
reported in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner,
Allahabad, found that mere involvement in
criminal case cannot in any way affect the
public security or public interest and the
order cancelling or revoking the licence of
fire arm has been set aside."

25. In Satish Singh v. District
Magistrate, Sultanpur 2009 (4) ADJ 33
(LB), this Court elaborately explained what
is detrimental to the security of the public
peace or public safety and held that mere
involvement in criminal case cannot in any
way affect the public security or public
interest. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Satish
Singh case (supra) are being reproduced as
under:

"6. A plain reading of section 17
indicates that the arms licence can be
cancelled or suspended on the ground that
the licensing authority deems it necessary
for security of the public peace or the
public safety. In the present case, while
passing the impugned order, neither the
District Magistrate nor the appellate
authority has recorded the finding as to
how and under what circumstance, the
possession
of
arms
licence
by
the
petitioner, is detrimental to the public
peace or the public security and safety.
Merely because criminal case is pending
more so, does not seem to attract the
provisions of section 17 of the Arms Act. To
attract the provisions of section 17 of the
Arms Act with regard to public peace,
security and safety it shall always be
incumbent on the authorities to record a
finding that how, under what circumstances
and what manner, the possession of arms
licence shall be detrimental to public
peace, safety and security. In absence of
such finding merely on the ground that a
criminal case is pending without any
mitigating circumstances with regard to
endanger of public peace, safety and
security, the provisions contained under
Section 17 of the Arms Act, shall not
satisfy.

7. Needless to say that right to
life and liberty are guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
the arms licences are granted for personal
safety and security after due inquiry by the
authorities
in
accordance
with
the
provisions contained in Arms Act, 1959.
1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The provisions of section 17 of the Arms
Act
with
regard
to
suspension
or
cancellation of arms licence cannot be
invoked lightly in an arbitrary manner. The
provisions contained under Section 17 of
the Arms Act should be construed strictly
and not liberally. The conditions provided
therein,
should
be
satisfied
by
the
authorities before proceeding ahead to
cancel or suspend an arms licence. We may
take notice of the fact that any reason
whatsoever, the crime rate is raising day by
day. The Government is not in a position to
provide security to each and every person
individually. Right to possess arms is
statutory right but right to life and liberty is
fundamental 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 arms licence
are abused for oblique motive or criminal
activities, then appropriate measures may be
adopted to check such mal-practice. But arms
licence should not be suspended in a routine
manner mechanically, without application of
mind and keeping in view the letter and spirit
of Section 17 of the Arms Act."

28. In Thakur Prasad Vs. State of
U.P. and others reported 2013(31) LCD
1460 (LB) this Court after referring to the
earlier pronouncements in the case of Ram
Murli Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate,
Sitapur [1998 (16) LCD 905] and Habib
Vs. State of U.P., 2002 ACC 783, held in
paragraphs 10 and 11 as follows:

"10. "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 safety of few
persons only and before passing of the
order of cancellation of arm license as per
Section 17 (3) of the Act the Licensing
Authority is under an obligation to apply
his mind to the question as to whether there
was eminent danger to public peace and
safety involved in the case in view of the
judgment given by this court in the case of
Ram
Murli
Madhukar
v.
District
Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 916) LCD 905],
wherein it has been held that license can
not be suspended or revoked on the ground
of public interest (Jan-hit) merely on the
registration of an F.I.R. and pendency of a
criminal case."

11. Further, this Court in the case
of Habib v. State of U.P. 2002 ACC 783
held as under:

"The question as to whether mere
Involvement in a criminal case or pendency of
a criminal case can be a ground for
revocation of the licence under Arms Act, has
been dealt with by a Division Bench of this
Court in Sheo prasad Misra Vs. District
Magistrate, Basti and Others, 1978 AWC 122,
wherein the Division Bench relying upon the
earlier
decision
in
Masi
Uddin
Vs.
Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573,
found that mere involvement in criminal case
cannot, in any way, affect the public security
or public interest and the order cancelling or
revoking the licence of fire arm has been set
aside. The present impugned orders also suffer
from the same infirmity as was pointed out by
the Division Bench in the above mentioned
cases. I am in full agreement with the view
taken by the Division Bench that these orders
cannot be sustained and deserves to be
quashed and are hereby quashed.

There is yet another reason that
during the pendency of the present writ
3 All. Smt. Nahida Fatima @ Naheed Fatima Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1159
petition, the petitioner has been acquitted
from the aforesaid criminal case and at
present there is neither any case pending,
nor any conviction has been attributed to
the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure
SA-I and II to the supplementary affidavit
filed by the petitioner. In this view of the
matter, the petitioner is entitled to have the
fire-arm licence."

32. In Ghanshyam Gupta v. State
of U.P. and others [2016 (34) LCD 3035]
this Court has again held that the
necessary ingredients to invoke jurisdiction
of the licencing authority in terms of
Section 17 were clearly lacking and no
finding had been returned on the basis of
materials produced in that regard by the
licencing authority, which must justify
passing of the order of cancellation.
Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is being
quoted as under:

"9. In a recent decision of
Lucknow Bench of this court in Surya
Narain Mishra v. Stae of U.P. and others,
reported in 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 tranqulity
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 allowed to be reflected while
acting as a public servant.

36. In the present case the
petitioner's licence was cancelled by the
District Magistrate on the ground of
pendency of criminal case against him. The
petitioner was later on acquitted of the
criminal case by order dated 17.1.2003. A
perusal of the order of acquittal does not
show the use of fire arm. After acquittal the
very basis of the order of cancellation
vanished. The finding of the District
Magistrate
as
affirmed
by
the
Commissioner, that it was not in the interest
of public peace and the public security that
the
licence
remained
with
the
petitioner/licencee, is not based on any
evidence/material, except the police reports
which in their turn were in view of the
pendency of the criminal case against the
petitioner. On 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."
1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. On the basis of the aforesaid
judgments as reproduced herein-above, the
Court is of the opinion that the case of the
present petitioner is on a much better
footing, since in the present case no
criminal case whatsoever has been lodged
against the petitioner/ arm license holder at
any point of time and only on the basis of
apprehension that the fire arm could be
used by her family members, the Arm
License of the petitioner was cancelled. It
is further clear from record that the license
of the petitioner was cancelled on the sole
ground of apprehension that the aforesaid
Arm License could be misused by the
husband
and
brother-in-law
of
the
petitioner as stated above and as per record,
the husband has already been acquitted in
the criminal case itself, insofar as the
brother-in-law (devar) is concerned, he is
no more and hence the sole ground of
cancellation, i.e., apprehension cannot
stand firm.

19. In this view of the matter, the
Court is of the firm opinion that the
petitioner has a prima facie case for the
grant of reliefs as prayed by her in the
present writ petition.

20. In view of the facts as stated
above, the order dated 01.11.2019 passed
by the Commissioner Bareilly Division
Bareilly in Appeal No. 00614 of 2018 filed
under Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act,
1959 as well as the order dated 22.03.2018
passed by the District Magistrate, Badaun
in Case No. 08 of 2014 under Section 17-
(3) of the Act of 1959 are liable to be set
aside and are hereby set aside.

21. Writ petition stands allowed.

22. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 1160
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-C No. 19960 of 2022

Prem Pal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ms. Meenakshi Singh (State Law
Officer), Sri Anadi Krishna Narayana

A. Civil Law - Interpretation of Statues - It
is a cardinal principle of construction of a
statute that when the language of the
statute is plain and unambiguous, then
the court must give effect to the words
used in the statute - However, if on going
through
the
plain
meaning
of
the
language
of
statutes,
it
leads
to
anomalies, injustices and absurdities, then
the court may look into the purpose for
which the statute has been brought and
would try to give a meaning, which would
adhere to the purpose of the statute.
(Para 5)

B. Civil Law - Land Acquisition - The Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 28A - Redetermination
of
the
amount
of
compensation on the basis of the award of
the Court - Where the court allows any
amount of compensation in excess of the
amount awarded by the collector u/s 11,
the persons interested in all the other land
covered by the same notification u/s 4(1),
notwithstanding that they had not made
an application to the Collector u/s 18, by
application to the Collector, require that
the amount of compensation payable to