Manish Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri N.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

Considering the pure legal submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel stated that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit but would make oral submissions and the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage under the Rules of this Court, hence I proceed accordingly.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he had used his fire-arm in self defence and made fire only in air for his own protection. This act of petitioner which did not cause any injury to anyone has been taken by authorities concerned as sufficient ground for cancellation of his fire-arm licence though admittedly the fire-arm licence was allowed to petitioner for using the same for his self defence which was a case before the authorities concerned and the same having not been found incorrect, the impugned order cancelling fire-arm licence is clearly arbitrary and illegal.

Learned Standing Counsel having gone through the impugned order could not show as to what illegality or unlawful activity was committed by petitioner justifying cancellation of fire-arm licence.

Afire-arm licence is allowed to a person for self defence and, therefore, it is well established that the same would be used as and when occasion will arise for self defence. In the present case when the petitioner was mobbed by several persons, he fired in air for his self defence to disburse the crowd which is a well recognised method of using a fire-arm in such a situation. The petitioner has categorically pleaded this defence before the authorities concerned and the same has not been found false or incorrect. The impugned order has been passed only on the allegation that this act of petitioner has caused panic in the area, which shows that authorities have not considered the matter in correct perspective.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 20.1.2011 and 23.4.2011 are hereby quashed.