# Surya Bhanu Pandey v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 173 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-02-04 - **Bench:** Rajiv Sharma - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surya-bhanu-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41820 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Arms Act Section 17 (3)-Cancellation of fire Arm License-on ground of pendency of criminal cases-held-mere involvement or pendency of criminal case cannot be ground for revocation of license. Held: Para 4 It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17(3) of the Act. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a aground for revocation of licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra Versus The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin Versus Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib Versus State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783, Ram Sanehi Versus Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another. Case law discussed: [2006(24) LCD 114]; [2006(24) LCD 266]; [2006(24) LCD 374]; 2002 ACC 783 ## Text 1 All] Surya Bhanu Pandey V. State of U.P. and others 173 28. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. 29. Registrar of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, New Delhi as well as to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. for onward transmission to the Press Council of India and other agencies of Media. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 04.02.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J. Misc. Single No. - 2373 of 1992 Surya Bhanu Pandey ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri U.B. Pandey Sri R.K.Pathak Sri S.K.Tewari Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Arms Act Section 17 (3)-Cancellation of fire Arm License-on ground of pendency of criminal cases-held-mere involvement or pendency of criminal case cannot be ground for revocation of license. Held: Para 4 It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17(3) of the Act. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a aground for revocation of licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra Versus The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin Versus Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib Versus State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783, Ram Sanehi Versus Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another. Case law discussed: [2006(24) LCD 114]; [2006(24) LCD 266]; [2006(24) LCD 374]; 2002 ACC 783 (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J. ) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner assails the order impugned passed by the Licensing Authority whereby the arms license of the petitioner was cancelled inter-alia on the ground that a criminal case has been registered against him and is still pending adjudication against which an appeal was filed, that too was dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. Pleadings were exchanged between the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's arms-license has been cancelled on account of pendency of the 174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 trial. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after trial, the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him and as such the petitioner's arms' license may be restored. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the cases of Ram Kripal Singh Versus Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and others [2006(24) LCD 114], Virendra Pal Singh Versus State of U.P. and others [reported in 2006(24) LCD 266] and Sahab Singh Versus Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra and others [2006(24) LCD 374] in which it has been held that merely because of pendency of a criminal case, the licence cannot be cancelled nor the licence can be placed under suspension pending enquiry and the orders impugned deserve to be quashed. 4. It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17(3) of the Act. The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a aground for revocation of licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra Versus The District Magistrate, Basti and others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin Versus Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public security or public interest. The law propounded in the said decisions has been subsequently followed in Habib Versus State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783, Ram Sanehi Versus Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the case laws, referred to above, I am of the view that the appellate Court has committed an error in not considering the facts in correct prospective and has also failed to appreciate the grounds mentioned in Section 17(3) of the Arms Act regarding revocation or for suspending a licence. The order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be legally sustained. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 16.06.1992 (Annexure no.4) and 18.01.1991 (Annexure no.3) passed by the Commissioner Faizabad Division, Faizabad and the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 respectively are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the Licensing Authority, the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, the opposite party no.3 is directed to consider the matter and pass a fresh order after taking into account all relevant aspects and prescription provided under Section 17 of the Arms Act and if, there is no legal impediment, the arms licence of the petitioner is directed to be restored back, at the earliest. --------- 1 All] Smt. Vandana Gangwar V. State of U.P. and others 175 ORIGINAL JURISDICION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.02.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3320 of 2004 Smt. Vandana Gangwar ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Preet Pal Singh Rathore Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Sri J.P. Rai Sri R.K.Mishra, Sri S.R. Pandey U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Act, 1982-Reservation in Promotion-out of 7 Post three occupied by direct recruitment-four under 50% promotion Quota-petitioner being Senior most L.T. Grade teacher rightly promoted-authority refused to grant approval raising objection the post in Question be fulfilled by S.C./S.T. Candidate held-misconceived-in view of Full Bench decision of Heera Lal case if vacancy less than 5-No reservation for S.C./S.T. Available-order impugned refusing approval-not sustainable Quashed with all consequential benefits. Held: Para 6 In view of the said Full Bench judgment, it has to be held that since there are only four posts within the promotion quota in the cadre of Lecturer in the institution, no reservation for Scheduled Caste category candidate can be provided. Consequently the reasons assigned in the impugned order fall to ground. The order impugned is therefore, quashed. Let the respondent no. 3 (Joint Director of Education, Bareilly Region, Bareilly) reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regular promotion in accordance with the Act, 1982 preferably within eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. All consequential action be taken accordingly. Case law discussed: (2010) 3 UPLBEC, 1761 (Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J. ) 1. Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order dated 24.11.2003 whereunder the papers transmitted qua regular promotion of the petitioner as Lecturer (History) have been returned after recording a finding that the vacancy is required to be filled from a Scheduled Caste category candidate. The petitioner not being a member of such category is not entitled for regular promotion against the same. 2. Facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows : Raja Ram Mahila Inter College, Badaun is an aided and recognized institution under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The provisions of U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 (herein after referred to as the Act, 1982) and rules framed thereunder are fully applicable to the teachers of the said institution. As per the records made available to the Court, eight posts of Lecturer were created in the institution. One Shyama Devi Sharma who was working as Lecturer (History) in the institution expired on 15.06.1995 causing a vacancy on the post of Lecturer (History).