Allahabad High Court
Ratan Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ... on 7 October, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:61880
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 7685 of 2016
Ratan Lal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Sect. Andors
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Ranjeet Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Ghanshyam Verma
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.03.2001 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Lucknow respondent no. 3 herein whereby the petitioner?s arms licence No. 1340 for D.B.B.L. Gun No. 2612/2713 was cancelled. The appellate order dated 04.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow-respondent no. 1 affirming the same, is also under challenge.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was lawfully granted the aforesaid arms licence which remained duly renewed till 1991. The licence was cancelled on the ground that a Crime Case No. 15 of 1991, under Sections 302/307 IPC, was registered against him at Police Station Madiyaon, Lucknow, and that he had misused the licence, defaulted in payment of revenue dues, and threatened the Amin during recovery proceedings.
3. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted a reply dated 15.01.1991, denying the allegations and asserting that the criminal case was malicious and that the revenue dues had been deposited on 23.12.1987, and that pendency of a criminal case could not be a ground for cancellation of licence. However, the Licensing Authority held that possession of arms by the petitioner was prejudicial to public peace and safety, and accordingly revoked the licence by the impugned order dated 30.03.2001.
4. The petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the said criminal case by judgment dated 18.10.2010, and thereafter preferred an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act, registered as Appeal No. C-201610000078. The appeal, however, was dismissed on 04.02.2016 on the ground of delay and want of sufficient cause.
5. 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 merely on pendency of a criminal case without any independent finding of misuse of arms, and that the appellate authority failed to consider the petitioner?s acquittal and the principles of natural justice.
6. 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 piece 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."
9. 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 acquittal in the criminal case nor did they examine whether the reasons recorded for cancellation were sustainable in law. The orders dated 30.03.2001 and 04.02.2016 thus reflect patent non-application of mind.
10. This Court is of the opinion that mere apprehension 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.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 30.03.2001 and 04.02.2016 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Licensing Authority (respondent no. 3) to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
12. No order as to costs.
(Jaspreet Singh,J.) October 7, 2025 Asheesh