Allahabad High Court
Shyam Bihari @ Lalla Pandey vs Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow on 30 October, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:68854
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 1004117 of 2009
Shyam Bihari @ Lalla Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Moti Chand Yadav, Hariom Divedi, Prashant Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 01.06.2007 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow (East), respondent no. 2 herein, whereby the petitioner?s arms licence No. 84/2002 pertaining to S.B.B.L. Gun No. 23304 was cancelled. The appellate order dated 14.05.2009, passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, respondent no. 1 herein, affirming the order of cancellation, has also been challenged.
2. The brief facts, as culled out from the record, are that the petitioner was granted an arms licence bearing No. 84/2002 for his personal safety and protection. Subsequently, on the basis of registration of Crime Case Nos. 106/2006 and 107/2006, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, the Licensing Authority initiated proceedings for cancellation of the licence. The ground taken for such action was that, in view of the said criminal cases and the forthcoming elections, there was an apprehension that the petitioner might misuse the weapon and thereby disturb public peace and tranquility.
3. It appears that a show-cause notice dated 04.04.2007 was issued to the petitioner requiring him to explain as to why his arms licence should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations. It was specifically asserted by the petitioner that he is a respectable person of society, that the allegations regarding use of his firearm in the aforesaid criminal cases are wholly false, and that he has been falsely implicated in the said cases for extraneous reasons.
However, the Licensing Authority, not being satisfied with the explanation furnished, recorded a finding that the petitioner was involved in the aforesaid criminal cases and that his possession of arms was dangerous and prejudicial to public peace and safety. Consequently, by order dated 01.06.2007, the Licensing Authority revoked the arms licence of the petitioner.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, which was registered as Appeal No. 505 of 2006?07, before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. The appellate authority, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 14.05.2009, observing that criminal cases were pending against the petitioner and that restoration of his arms licence would be prejudicial to public peace and order.
5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, contending that both the orders suffer from illegality and arbitrariness inasmuch as the mere pendency of criminal cases cannot, in law, constitute a valid ground for cancellation of an arms licence unless the competent authority records a finding based on objective satisfaction that the continuance of such licence is likely to endanger public peace or safety. It is further urged that no material has been placed on record to show that the petitioner ever misused his weapon or that its possession posed any threat to public order.
6. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that both the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and that the cancellation was based not on any independent finding of misuse of arms.
7. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the Authorities have taken a conscious decision on material available on record and the same has been considered even by the Appellate Authority in rejecting the arms license and this finding being based on material on record amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction.
7. Before adverting to the respective contentions, it will be relevant to notice the dictum as held in the case of Mewa Lal & Kunnu Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and another reported in 2014 (32) LCD page 576 wherein this Court by referring to an earlier decision in the case of Rajendra Singh v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow; 2011 (29) LCD page 1045 has culled out the meaning of the word public peace and public safety and the relevant portion of the aforesaid report of Mewa Lal (supra) reads as under:-
"In the case of Rajendra Singh vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and others, reported in 2011 (29) LCD 1041 'Public Peace' or 'Public Safety' has been defined. The relevant paras 6 & 7 read as under:
6. '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. Before passing of the order in exercise of power conferred under 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.
7.It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arms act 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 ground for revocation of licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti & others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin Vs. 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 Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783."
7. The learned Standing Counsel while opposing the submissions has urged that since the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and his presence was a threat to the public peace and order and now in the aforesaid circumstances, the license was cancelled which cannot be termed to be arbitrary and accordingly the petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. Even in the case of Ram Charan V. State of U.P. and others; 2018 (36) LCD 1178, this Court noticing the distinction between the concept of public order and breach of law, by relying upon the earlier decisions of the Apex Court and this Court in paragraphs 11 to 18, have considered the requisite which is required to be noticed while considering an application for grant or revocation of an arms license. The relevant paras read as under:-
11. The distinction between the concept of public order and that of law and order has been adverted to by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. The question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or acted in a manner leading to disturbance of public order is a question of degree of the reach of the act upon society is no more res integra. In the case reported in AIR 1966 SC 740, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar it was observed that the contravention 'of law' always affects 'order' but before it could be said to affect 'public order', it must affect the community or the public at large. One has to imagine three concentric circles, the largest representing "law and order", the next representing "public order" and the smallest representing "security of State". An act may affect "law and order" but not "public order", just as an act may affect "public order" but not "security of the State".
12. The principles settled way back in the year 1966 in the case of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (Supra) has been repeatedly quoted with respect and approval.
13. In 1998 (16) LCD 905, Ram Murti Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur, in paragrah 8 & 9 of the said report this Court has held as follows:-
"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 Allahabad-291).
9. It is also well settled in law that before passing of the order of suspension or revocation, under clause (b) of sub section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, the licensing authority must apply its mind to the question as to whether there was eminent danger to public peace and safety involved in the case. Licence cannot be suspended or revoked on the ground of 'Jan Hit'."
14. In 2002 (44) ACC 783, Habib Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. in paragraph 3 & 4 of the said report it has been held as follows:-
"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 v. 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 firearm has been set aside. The present impugned orders also suffer from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in abovementioned 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.
4. There is yet another reason that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has been acquitted from the aforesaid criminal cases and at present there is neither any case pending, nor any conviction has been attributed to the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure SA-1 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. It is submitted by petitioner's counsel that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges."
15. In 2009 (10) ADJ 635, Ashiq Hussain Vs. Commissioner, Moradabad & Ors., in paragraph 6 of the report it has been held as under:
"6. The mere involvement in a solitary criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of a firearm license as held by this Court in case of Mohd. Haroon Vs. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar reported in 2003 (1) ACJ 124, unless and until it is shown on the basis of material on record that there was grave danger to public law and order. In the instant case it is only a solitary incident, which was not arising out of any disturbance of public law and order, that has been made the basis for ordering cancellation."
16. In 2011 (29) LCD 1045, Rama Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., a Single Judge of this Court in paragraph 10 & 11 of the said report has held as follows:-
"10. In Ram Murli Madhukar Vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998(16) LCD 905], this Court has held that licence can not be suspended or revoked on the ground of public interest (Janhit).
11. It is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arms act 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 ground for revocation of licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court Sheo Prasad Misra Vs. The District Magistrate, Basti & others, wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision of Masiuddin Vs. 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 Vs. State of U.P. Reported in 2002 ACC 783, Ram Sanehi Vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda & another."
17. In 2011 (29) LCD 829, Hiramani Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. it was held as under:-
"8. This Court in the case of Ashok Rao v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2010 (68) ACC 441 while considering the authority to be exercised under Section 17 of the Indian Arms Act has taken the view that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be ground for cancellation of firearm license unless and until finding is returned by the authority concerned that possession of firearm has the tendency of threatening public peace and public safety."
18. In 1994 (12) LCD 1109, Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Distt. Magistrate, Pratapgarh, in paragraph no. 6 of the said report it has been held as follows:-
"6. ...Therefore, it is clear that at the time of passing the order order dated 6-2-79 by the Commissioner, there was no ground on which the gun licence of the petitioner could have been cancelled. Both the grounds were wiped off before passing of the order of the learned Commissioner and the learned Commissioner could not have passed this order unless there was some fresh material against the petitioner be that date. In this connection it will by useful to refer to the case of Ram Bodh Singh v. State of U.P. & others, 1985 (11) Allahabad Law Reports, 114, in which it has been held that once petitioner was acquitted those cases could not furnish material for cancellation of his licence. Therefore, on the date on which the Commissioner passed his licence. Therefore, on the date on which the Commissioner passed his order, it cannot be said that the cancellation of licence was in the public interest and this fact could not be substantiated by the State."
8. Upon consideration of the record, it prima facie appears that the Licensing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority did not advert to the effect of the petitioner's involvement in the criminal case nor did it examine whether the reasons recorded for cancellation were sustainable in law. In light of the law noticed above and applied in the instant case, it would reveal that the orders dated 13.03.2009 and 19.12.2012, reflects patent non-application of mind.
9. This Court is of the opinion that mere pendency of criminal cases cannot take the nature of objective satisfaction that grant of an arms license to the petitioner would lead to breach or danger to public peace and public safety.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 01.06.2007 and 14.05.2009 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Licensing Authority (respondent no. 2) to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh in light of the law discussed hereinabove, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
11. No order as to costs. .
(Jaspreet Singh,J.) October 30, 2025 Asheesh