Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Kunal Ravi Singh, J.
Yogendra Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 21944 of 2022
Decided On : 19-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Kailash Singh Kushwaha, Ramesh Chandra Yadav
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

Authorities must substantiate violations of licensing rules with clear evidence; arbitrary cancellation of arms licence based on unfounded allegations is unlawful.

Headnote:(A) Indian Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 17(3) and 18 - Arms Rules, 2016 - Petition for quashing cancellation of arms licence - Authorities failed to apply Rule 32 effectively; no clear findings on violations presented - Cancellation deemed arbitrary and illegal based on lack of evidence. (Paras 12, 14)

(B) Relevant legal principles include reliance on material facts and a requirement for authorities to substantiate claims of violations for cancelling licenses. (Paras 11, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having a valid arms licence, had his license cancelled on allegations of public misuse. No criminal case was pending against him, and he asserted compliance with regulations.

Findings of Court:
Orders cancelling the licence were set aside due to a lack of findings on essential requirements.

Issues: (i) Whether cancellation of the license was justified based on Rule 32 violations? (ii) Did the authority appropriately apply Rule 32 in cancellation?

Ratio Decidendi: Court found no clear basis for violation of Rule 32 and determined both cancellation orders were arbitrary.

Result: Writ petition allowed; the arms licence was restored.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's license was cancelled based on alleged violations. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments about cancellation being arbitrary and unjustified. (Para 4 , 5)
3. failure to meet rule 32 requirements for cancellation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. petitioner cannot be penalized without rule 32 application. (Para 14 , 15)
5. writ petition allowed, orders quashed, license restored. (Para 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

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 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 petit