# Vishnu v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 724
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-09-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28185 of 1998
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishnu-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39936
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Cancellation of fire arms- on the ground
of involvement in criminal cases- during
pendency of Appeal- petitioner got fair
acquittal- Dismissal of appeal on new
ground
of
suspection
of
criminal
activities- held- illegal cancellation order
quashed.
Held- Para 2

The appellate authority in its order
impugned in the present writ petition
has noticed the fact that the petitioner
has no doubt been acquitted in both
these
criminal
cases
on
the
basis
whereof the petitioner's firearm licence
was revoked, but the appellate authority
has dismissed the petitioner's appeal on
the ground which is neither relevant for
the revocation of the licence, nor the
petitioner was served with a notice and
was asked to explain as to why his
aforesaid firearm licence should not be
revoked. In this view of the matter, the
appellate authority has carved out a new
case in its order, which has never been
taken by the licensing authority for
revocation of the firearm licence of the
petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1978 AWC-122
1972 ALJ-573
2002 (i) 501

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
which is valid as if the same has been
executed by the judgment debtor himself.

5. Thus the Chief Treasury Officer
will treat the executing court as the
drawing and disbursing officer and will
accordingly draw and pay the amount to
the decree holder within three weeks from
today.

6. In view of what has been stated
above I am of the opinion that the
disobedience of the order of the executing
Court on part of the Chief Treasury
Officer was not "deliberate", and thus
apart from the direction given above, no
further action in this Contempt Petition is
called for.

7. Therefore, with the aforesaid
direction
this
contempt
petition
is
disposed of finally.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28185 of 1998

Vishnu

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. through Commissioner and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Cancellation of fire arms- on the ground
of involvement in criminal cases- during
pendency of Appeal- petitioner got fair
acquittal- Dismissal of appeal on new
ground
of
suspection
of
criminal
activities- held- illegal cancellation order
quashed.
Held- Para 2

The appellate authority in its order
impugned in the present writ petition
has noticed the fact that the petitioner
has no doubt been acquitted in both
these
criminal
cases
on
the
basis
whereof the petitioner's firearm licence
was revoked, but the appellate authority
has dismissed the petitioner's appeal on
the ground which is neither relevant for
the revocation of the licence, nor the
petitioner was served with a notice and
was asked to explain as to why his
aforesaid firearm licence should not be
revoked. In this view of the matter, the
appellate authority has carved out a new
case in its order, which has never been
taken by the licensing authority for
revocation of the firearm licence of the
petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1978 AWC-122
1972 ALJ-573
2002 (i) 501

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. The petitioner, who is a license of
a firearm D.B.B.L. gun, approaches this
Court by means of the present writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India against the order
passed by the Licensing Authority/District
Magistrate, Meerut dated 13.08.1993,
whereby the licensing authority revoked
the aforesaid licence issued to the
petitioner. A perusal of the notice as well
as the impugned order revoking the
firearm
licence
of
the
petitioner
demonstrate that the licence of firearm of
the petitioner has been revoked on the
ground that he was involved in two
criminal cases, which are case crime no.
39 of 1991 and 1 of 1992, under different
sections of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Vishnu V. State of U.P. and others
725
aforesaid order of the revocation of the
firearm licence, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the appellate authority. The
appellate authority vide its order dated
14.07.1998 dismissed the petitioner's
appeal and upheld the order of revocation
passed by the licensing authority. It is
these two orders, which have been
challenged by the petitioner by means of
present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submitted that
during the pendency of the appeal before
the appellate authority, petitioner has filed
the judgment of the Session trial arising
out of case crime no. 39 of 1991, in which
he has been acquitted by the Session
Judge concerned and also the order of the
XIIth A.C.J.M., Meerut in case crime no.
1 of 1992, in which the petitioner was
also acquitted, therefore on the date when
the appeal was heard the ground on which
the firearm licence was revoked was no
more in existence and the appellate
authority has erred in law in dismissing
the petitioner's appeal. The appellate
authority in its order impugned in the
present writ petition has noticed the fact
that the petitioner has no doubt been
acquitted in both these criminal cases on
the basis whereof the petitioner's firearm
licence was revoked, but the appellate
authority has dismissed the petitioner's
appeal on the ground which is neither
relevant for the revocation of the licence,
nor the petitioner was served with a notice
and was asked to explain as to why his
aforesaid firearm licence should not be
revoked. In this view of the matter, the
appellate authority has carved out a new
case in its order, which has never been
taken by the licensing authority for
revocation of the firearm licence of the
petitioner.

3. Learned Standing Counsel tries to
justify the orders passed by the appellate
authority as well as the licensing authority
but in view of the recent decision
delivered by me in civil misc. writ
petition no. 28240 of 1998- Raghuvir
Singh
Vs.
Commissioner,
Jhansi
Division, Jhansi and others, (decided on
13.09.2002), wherein I have relied upon
two Division Bench decisions reported in
1978 A.W.C. page 122- Sheo Prasad
Misra Vs. The District Magistrate,
Basti and others; and 1972 A.L.J., page
573- Masi Uddin Vs. Commissioner,
Allahabad and also my judgement
reported
in
2002
(1)
Judicial
Interpretation on Crimes, page 501
Iftikhar Khan Vs. State of U.P. and
others, wherein this Court has held that
mere involvement in a criminal case
cannot, in any way, affect the public
security or public interest and also is not
sufficient for revocation of the firearm
licence of the licensee, coupled with the
fact that the petitioner has already been
acquitted in the aforesaid two criminal
cases. In this view of the matter, without
entering into any further argument, this
petition deserves to be succeeded and the
orders of the licensing authority as well as
the appellate authority deserve to be
quashed.

4. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The orders dated 13.08.1993 and
14.07.1998 passed by the licensing
authority and the appellate authority,
Annexure-1 and 5 to the writ petition, are
quashed. The firearm of the petitioner, if
deposited, shall be returned to the
petitioner alongwith the licence forthwith.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE V.N. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32540 of 2001

Lt. Col V.S. Chhauker (IC-38789P)

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Col. Sri R.A. Pandey (Retd.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India- Article 226- This
Court is very reluctant to interfere in
army matters as that would interfere
with Army discipline. It is only in very
rare cases that this Court will interfere in
army matters. Under the Army Act, Rules
and Regulations there is a detailed
procedure about giving adverse entry
and
making
representation/complaint
against, and the petitioner can avail of
the same. (Held in para 9).

In para 4 of the counter affidavit of
respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 it is stated
that the petitioner's statutory complaint
is pending before respondent no. 1. We
therefore direct respondent no. 1 to
decide the said complaint by a speaking
order within two months of production
of certified copy of this order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
against
the
impugned
order
dated
9.5.2002, Annexure 2 to the petition and
for a mandamus directing the respondents
to promote the petitioner to the rank, of
Colonel and to set aside from the
petitioner's dossier his complete ACR for
the period 1.6.98 to 31 May, 99.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

3. It is alleged in para 7 of the writ
petition that in June 98, during the
absence of the Commanding Officer
respondent no. 5, the petitioner while
officiating
as
CO
noticed
that
approximately Rs. 2 lacs unaccounted
cash was lying with the Subedar Major.
The petitioner apprised about it to the CO
as soon as he returned from leave. The
CO did not take kindly to this saying that
it was already in his knowledge and
threatened to spoil the petitioner's ACR if
he raked up the matter. Thereafter theCO
became vindictive towards the petitioner
and started harassing him including social
boycott of the petitioner's family. The
petitioner then sought an interview with
the
Brigade
Commander.
The
correspondence exchanged between the
Brigade Commander, the CO and the
petitioner on this issue between 18.11.98
to 1.4.99 is attached as Appendices A to
O of the petitioner's statutory complaint
enclosed as Annexure 1. In para 9 of the
petition it is alleged that the petitioner
was granted interview by the Brigade
Commander on 2.12.98, during which he
apprised the latter about the unaccounted
funds saying that without a Court of
Inquiry the extent and responsibility for
the unaccounted funds could not be
pinpointed. The Brigade Commander
asked the petitioner to put up the
complaint
in
writing.
This
further
infuriated the CO, who again threatened
to spoil the petitioner's ACR if he did not
withdraw the complaint. It is alleged that
later the respondent no. 4 pressurised the
petitioner into withdrawing the complaint