# Yogendra Prasad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 433
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-19
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 21944 of 2022
- **Bench:** Kunal Ravi Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yogendra-prasad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52854
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C S.C.

Issue for Consideration
The primary issue was whether a petitioner can
be penalized with the cancellation of an arms
license and seizure of weapon without the
authorities meeting the essential requirements
of Rule 32 of the Arms Rule, 2016.

Headnotes
A. Civil matter-Constitution of India,1950Article 226- Indian Arms Act- Section
17(3), 18 & Arms Rules 2016-Rule 32Compliance of Rule 32-The petitioner
license was suspended following a report
from the local police in 2020-No evidence
that the petitioner had brandished or
discharged the firearm in a public place or
failed to carry it in proper protective gear
as required by Rule 32-The authorities
failed to indicate which specific sub-rule
was violated-The court ordered to restore
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner's license and immediate
return of the seized weapon-Writ petition
allowed.(E-6)

Held
The cancellation was based on Rule 32 of the
Arms Rules 2016 with authorities alleging that the
expenditure of cartridges during "cleaning and
testing" constituted a violation-The court held that
cancellation cannot be based on "surmises or
conjectures" or vague allegations of "public firing"
without
evidence.
An
administrative
order
cancelling a license must be a "speaking order"
that demonstrates a "due appreciation" of the
licensee's reply. The court ruled that failing to
address the petitioner's specific denials or failing to
indicate exactly which sub-rule was violated
renders the order "cryptic, arbitrary adn perverse
in the eyes of law. (Para 7 to 17)

List of Acts
Constitution of India,1950, Indian Arms Act &
Arms Rules 2016

List of keywords
Arms license, Rule 32 of Arms rules 2016,
Cancellation of license, Seizure of weapon,
Public place discharge, Arbitrary order.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: Writ C No. 21944 of
2022
Forom
the
judgment
and
order
dated
19.11.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Yogendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Appearance for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Kailash Singh Kushwaha, Ramesh Chandra
Yadav

Advs. for the Respondents:
C S.C.

## Text

11 All. Yogendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
433

7. The rationale that has been provided
by the authorities for depriving persons,
who are not residing in Lucknow but are
carrying on business in Lucknow, from
getting a registration of E-rickshaw is
without any basis in law and is clearly a
violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of
the
Constitution
of
India.
Any
discrimination that is done without having
a reasonable classification cannot be
countenanced by this Court and the Court is
duty bound to strike down such a
classification.

8. We are of the view that for
controlling the number of E-rickshaws in
the city, several other measures can be
taken by the authorities, wherein the
authorities can restrict the number of
registration certificates to be provided in a
particular year. Furthermore, stricter action
should be taken for impounding of vehicles
that are not having proper and valid fitness
certificates.
However,
the
reasoning
provided for not allowing persons not
having a permanent residence in Lucknow
is clearly arbitrary in nature as it would
patently infringe upon the rights of the
persons, who come from nearby places to
earn their livelihood in the city of
Lucknow. Lucknow being the capital city
of the State of Uttar Pradesh results in the
confluence of the people from villages in
all parts of Uttar Pradesh and encourages
people to come to the city to earn their
livelihood. A restriction such as the one
that has been provided for in the impugned
order would act as a hindrance to the same.
In fact, the authorities should allow
Lucknow to be a melting pot, where people
of diverse castes, religions and from
different strata of society are allowed to
come and work so as to encourage them to
participate in the prosperity of the capital
city.

9. In light of the same, the impugned
order insofar as it relates to this Erickshaws to be issued only to permanent
residents is quashed and aside.

10. With the above directions, all the
four writ petitions are disposed of.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 433
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 21944 of 2022

Yogendra Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kailash Singh Kushwaha, Ramesh Chandra
Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C S.C.

Issue for Consideration
The primary issue was whether a petitioner can
be penalized with the cancellation of an arms
license and seizure of weapon without the
authorities meeting the essential requirements
of Rule 32 of the Arms Rule, 2016.

Headnotes
A. Civil matter-Constitution of India,1950Article 226- Indian Arms Act- Section
17(3), 18 & Arms Rules 2016-Rule 32Compliance of Rule 32-The petitioner
license was suspended following a report
from the local police in 2020-No evidence
that the petitioner had brandished or
discharged the firearm in a public place or
failed to carry it in proper protective gear
as required by Rule 32-The authorities
failed to indicate which specific sub-rule
was violated-The court ordered to restore
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner's license and immediate
return of the seized weapon-Writ petition
allowed.(E-6)

Held
The cancellation was based on Rule 32 of the
Arms Rules 2016 with authorities alleging that the
expenditure of cartridges during "cleaning and
testing" constituted a violation-The court held that
cancellation cannot be based on "surmises or
conjectures" or vague allegations of "public firing"
without
evidence.
An
administrative
order
cancelling a license must be a "speaking order"
that demonstrates a "due appreciation" of the
licensee's reply. The court ruled that failing to
address the petitioner's specific denials or failing to
indicate exactly which sub-rule was violated
renders the order "cryptic, arbitrary adn perverse
in the eyes of law. (Para 7 to 17)

List of Acts
Constitution of India,1950, Indian Arms Act &
Arms Rules 2016

List of keywords
Arms license, Rule 32 of Arms rules 2016,
Cancellation of license, Seizure of weapon,
Public place discharge, Arbitrary order.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: Writ C No. 21944 of
2022
Forom
the
judgment
and
order
dated
19.11.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Yogendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Appearance for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Kailash Singh Kushwaha, Ramesh Chandra
Yadav

Advs. for the Respondents:
C S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kunal Ravi Singh, J.)

1. Sri R.C. Yadav, learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the State respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed inter-alia for the following relief :

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
13.07.2022
passed
by
Commissioner,
Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Appeal
bearing Case No.1329/2021, Computerized
Case
No.202114000001329,
Yogendra
Prasad Vs. State of U.P., under Section 18
of the Indian Arms Act and the order dated
09.08.2021 passed by District Magistrate,
Ghazipur in Case No.D-202014290000593
under Section 17(3) of the Indian Arms Act,
State of U.P. Vs. Yogendra Prasad
(Annexure No.9 and 6 to the writ petition
respectively) with all its consequential
effects.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature Mandamus directing
the respondents authorities to hand over
the arms licence and arms to the petitioner
for security of his life and property."

FACTS:

3. In brief, the facts are that the
petitioner was granted arm licence for
N.P.B.
Revolver
.32
bore
bearing
no.F.G.42495/2005
vide
Licence
No.1821/P-II dated 16.07.2005, which was
renewed from time to time by the
competent authority and was valid up to
14.09.2020. Notice dated 22.09.2020 was
issued by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur
based on the report of the S.H.O., Police
Station Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur.
In the said notice, it was directed that the
licence of the petitioner was suspended
with a direction to deposit his weapon with
the police station and a further direction
was issued for him to appear before the
court of District Magistrate, Ghazipur and
submit his reply. The petitioner replied to
11 All. Yogendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
435
the aforesaid notice in detail and denied all
the allegations levelled against him in the
notice.
The
petitioner
in
his
reply
specifically stated that he has never used
the weapon in contravention of any
conditions of the licence and he has always
used his weapon for his personal safety.
Furthermore, there is no criminal case
pending against the petitioner and the
factum of celebratory firing in marriage in
the public occasions has never taken place.
The weapon of the petitioner was also
taken in possession by SHO, Police Station
Mohammadabad, Ghazipur on 17.08.2020
in
pursuance
of
the
notice
dated
22.09.2020. Ultimately, by means of order
dated 09.08.2021, the gun licence of the
petitioner
was
cancelled
by
District
Magistrate, Ghazipur. Aggrieved by the
said order, cancelling his licence, the
petitioner has preferred an appeal before
the Commissioner, Varanasi, Division
Varanasi. The appeal also came to be
dismissed by means of order dated
13.07.2022
passed
by
Commissioner,
Varanasi Division Varanasi. Aggrieved by
both the orders cancelling the licence, the
petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition challenging the said orders is per se
arbitrary and illegal.

SUBMISSIONS:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended that the order dated
09.08.2021 cancelling his gun license is
based on surmises and conjectures and, as
such, is per se arbitrary and illegal. He has
referred to the specific ground taken in the
impugned order, in which, Rule 32 under
the Arms Rules, 2016, has been invoked to
cancel the licence of the petitioner and
seize the fire arm forthwith. He submits
that a bare perusal of Rule 32 would show
that nothing as contemplated in the said
Rule has been violated by the petitioner and
as such, Rule 32 is inapplicable in the
present case of the petitioner. He further
submits that on 17.08.2020, the petitioner
was called to the concerned police station
and read out Order No.Memo/Reader/2020
dated
22.09.2020
in
Case
No.D202014290000593/2020
and
in
pursuance of the same, the cartridges and
the weapon were taken in police custody.
He submits that the said custody of the
weapon and cartridges is also against Rule
32 as it is only against the cancellation of
the licence, the said process can be
adopted. He further submits that the order
of the Commissioner is similar to the order
passed by the District Magistrate and both
the orders clearly show that there is no
appreciation of the material facts as well as
of the reply of the petitioner before passing
of the impugned orders.

5.
Per
contra,
learned
Standing
Counsel stated that the order dated
09.08.2021 was passed after considering all
the material records of the case as well as
the police report on the basis of which, the
show cause notice was issued. He further
submits that the order dated 09.08.2021 has
been upheld by the appellate court namely,
the Commissioner, in Case No.1329 of
2021 by means of order dated 13.07.2022
and, as such, the impugned orders require
no interference from the Court and the writ
is liable to be dismissed.

ISSUES INVOLVED:

6. Heard the rival submissions and
perused the record. The following issues
are framed for adjudication of the present
dispute:

(i) Whether the petitioner can be
penalised with cancellation of the license
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and seizure of weapon without meeting the
essential requirements of Rule 32?

(ii) Whether the cancellation of
the gun license of the petitioner is justified
by invocation of Rule 32 of the Rules 2016?

ANALYSIS:

7.
Looking
into
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and from perusal
of the record, it is clear that the cancellation
of the licence took place on the basis of
Rule 32 of the Arms Rule, 2016 and the
impugned order states that the licence
holder has committed certain acts, which
are in violation of Rule 32 as a result of
which, the licence of the petitioner has
been cancelled. Before appreciating the
ground on which the licence can be
cancelled under Rule 32, the relevant Rule
32 is being reproduced herein :

"32. Restrictions on carrying of
firearm in public place.-(1) No person
shall carry a firearm in a public place
unlessthe firearm is carried -

(a) in the case of a handgun -

(i) in a holster or similar holder
designed, manufactured or adapted for the
carrying of a handgun and attached to his
person; or

(ii) in a rucksack or similar
holder; or

(b) in the case of any other
firearm,
in
a
holder
designed,
manufactured or adapted for the carrying
of a firearm.

(2) A firearm contemplated in
sub-rule (1) must be completely covered
and the person carrying the firearm must
be able to exercise effective control over
such firearm.

(3) Brandishing or discharge of
firearms or blank-firing firearms in any
public place or a firearm free zone is
strictly prohibited.

(4) Any violation of this rule shall
be liable to revocation of the licence and
seizure of the firearm in addition to the
penalty specified under the Act."

8. A perusal of the Rule 32 would
show that it mentions restrictions on
carrying of fire arm in public place and has
a negative connotation that no person can
carry a firm arm in public place unless the
fire arm is carried in a holster or a holder of
any
other
equipment
i.e.
designed,
manufactured or adopted for carrying of a
fire arm. Furthermore, sub-rule 3 of Rule
32 puts a prohibition on brandishing or
discharging of fire arms or blank-firing fire
arms in public place or firearm free zone
and the consequences of such violation are
the cancellation of the licence and seizure
of the weapon.

9. In the order passed by the District
Magistrate, 09.08.2021, the authority has
relied upon Rule 32 of Arms Rule, 2016 to
cancel the licence. Relying upon the fact
that public firing or violation of any of the
licensing conditions would render the
licence to be cancelled, the authorities have
relied upon the statements made by the
petitioner that the cartridges were expended
during cleaning and testing of the weapon
and, as such, it is a violation of Rule 32. In
this regard, the reply of the petitioner
submitted in pursuance of notice dated
22.09.2022 is also to be considered in as
much as in the reply specifically, the
petitioner has submitted that the cartridges
were expended only during testing and
cleaning of the weapon. The petitioner has
specifically denied that the petitioner has
11 All. Yogendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
437
ever used the weapon for public firing in
any wedding or any other public place.

10. From the reading of Rule 32, it is
clear that before a licence can be cancelled
under Rule 32, it is necessary that the
authority forms an opinion as to whether
any licensed fire arm was either not carried
in the proper protective gear or was
brandished, discharged or whether any
blank firing took place in any public place
or fire arm free zone. Such considerations
and opinions are sine qua non for
invocation of Rule 32 under the Rules,
2016.

11. In the impugned order, such
finding is clearly missing and as such, on
this ground alone impugned order is liable
to be quashed. Without clearly specifying
as to which of the sub-rules under Rule 32
is being violated by the petitioner, the
petitioner cannot be fastened upon the
liability of cancellation of his licence and
seizure of his weapon. Furthermore, from
the perusal of the order passed by the
District Magistrate, it is also clear that due
appreciation of the reply submitted by the
petitioner has also not been accorded by the
District Magistrate before passing of the
impugned order. The finding that the
petitioner is not a person of good standing
is also not borne out from the record.
12. The District Magistrate has not given
any finding with regard to any of the
conditions enumerated under Rule 32. It is
specifically required under Rule 32 that
either the weapon being carried in a holster
or any equipment manufactured, designed
to carry the same as required was not done
so or if the weapon was discharged in any
public place. There is no finding with
regard to the essential ingredients of Rule
32, violation of which would allow the
authority to pass an order for cancellation
and seizure. As a result of this, the entire
order is liable to be set aside.

13. The order of the Commissioner
passed in Appeal No.1329 of 2021 dated
13.07.2022 has not considered the reply of
the petitioner and has passed the order on
mere
surmises
and
conjectures.
The
appellate authority has also failed to
indicate as to how Rule 32 is applicable in
the present case and also failed to give a
clear finding with regard to violations of
any of the conditions as enumerated under
Rule 32. The order is cryptic in this regard.

14. Since, both the orders are devoid
of any findings as to the applicability of
Rule 32, therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that the orders are not passed in
accordance with law and are arbitrary &
perverse in law.

ANSWERS TO ISSUE (I) & (II):

15. The answer to issues frame above
are as follows :

(i) Since the Authorities have
failed to meet out the essential ingredients
of Rule 32 of Rules, 2016, therefore, the
petitioner
cannot
be
penalized
with
cancellation of license and seizure of
weapon.

(ii) On the basis of findings
above, the invocation of Rule 32 to cancel
the gun license of the petitioner is per-se
illegal and both the orders are quashed.

RELIEF:

16. In the light of above discussion,
this Court is of the considered opinion that
the orders dated 09.08.2021 and 13.07.2022
are liable to be set aside and are hereby set
aside. The writ petition stands allowed. As
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a result of writ petition being allowed, the
licence of the petitioner is restored, if it is
valid today, and the seized weapon and the
cartridges are to be returned forthwith upon
the valid licence being produced by the
petitioner.

17. The instant writ petition stands
allowed in light of the above said
directions.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 438
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 8942 of 2025
Alongwith case No. 8902 of 2025

Sonali Verma & Anr. ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Abhineet Jaiswal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Abhinav Kumar Mathur, Abhinav
Kumar Pandey, Ram Kumar Verma

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to liability of partners of
partnership firm.

Headnotes
Applicants are partners and a partnership deed
was reduced in writing for carrying on business
- applicants have been arrayed as accused -
contended that Mr. Sahil Verma is in-charge and
managing affairs of the aforesaid partnership
firm had issued cheques - the applicants cannot
escape from their liability-partnership firm is not
really a legal entity separate and distinct-it can
have a legal persona only when it is considered
along
with
its
partners-
in
absence
of
partnership firm being named as an accused if
the partners of the partnership firm are
proceeded
against-they
being
jointly
and
severally liable along with the partnership firm
as well as inter se partners of the firm-complaint
is
maintainable-
trial
court
has
rightly
entertained the complaint -no interference -
Application rejected. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla
and another, (2005) 8 SCC 89;
2. Sunita Palita and others Vs. Panchami Stone
Quarry, (2022) 10 SCC 152;
3. National Small Industries Corporation Limited
Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC 330;
4. Ashok Shewakramani and others Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and another, (2023) 8 SCC 473;
5. S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy Vs. Dr. Snehalatha
Elangovan, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1238;
6. Brij Lal Mittal Vs. State of U.P., (1998) 2 SCC
343;
7. Pepsi Foods Limited Vs. Special Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749;
8. State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992)
Supp.(1) SCC 335;
9. Smt. Vimla Devi and another Vs. State of U.P.
and another, (2017) SCC OnLine All 4354.

List of Acts
1. Indian Partnership Act, 1932
2. Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881

List of Keywords
liability-partnership, jointly and severally liable

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhineet Jaiswal,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Abhinav
Kumar Mathur, Avdhesh Kumar Pandey, Ram
Kumar Verma

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Both applications have been filed
seeking quashing of the entire proceedings
of Criminal Complaint Case Nos.925 of
2022 and 926 of 2022, M/s Kalpana
Industries Vs. M/s K.D. Overseas and
others, under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 (for short ?the Act,
1881?) as well as the summoning orders