AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.8.2005 passed by District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar cancelling firearm licence of petitioner and the appellate order dated 16.6.2008 confirming the said order in appeal.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that three criminal cases, which are foundation of passing the impugned order, were initiated by one Station In-charge who was posted in 2005 in the concerned area and those proceedings were all malicious. Prior to posting of Hari Prasad Yadav and after his transfer, no criminal case has ever been registered against petitioner and it shows that the impugned order has been passed on account of malicious proceedings initiated against petitioner by Hari Prasad Yadav.
Before entering the plea of mala fide, it is necessary that the person against whom allegations of mala fide are made is impleaded eo-nomine. In the case in hand, no one has been impleaded by petitioner by eo-nomine.. It is well settled that the plea of mala fide can neither be entertained nor shall be permitted to be raised in the absence of a person against whom such allegations are made.
In State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, of the judgment, the Apex Court held: -
It is a settled law that the person against whom mala fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo nominee as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those allegations would be made. Otherwise it itself is violative of the principles of natural justice as it amounts to condemning a person without an opportunity. Admittedly, both R.K. Singh and G.N. Sharma were not impleaded. On this ground alone the High Court should have stopped enquiry into the allegation of mala fides or bias alleged against them.
In AIR 1996 SC 326, J.N. Banavalikar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in para 21 of the judgment, it has been held as under: -
Further in the absence of impleadment of the....the person who had allegedly passed mala fide order in order to favour such junior doctor, any contention of mala fide action in fact i.e. malice in fact should not be countenanced by the Court.
In All India State Bank Officers'' Federation and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and others, in para 23, the Hon''ble Apex Court has said where a person, who has passed the order and against whom the plea of mala fide has been taken has not been impleaded, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the allegations of mala fide. The relevant observation of the Apex Court relevant are reproduced as under: -
The person against whom mala fides are alleged must be made a party to the proceeding. Board of Directors of the Bank sought to favour respondents 4 and 5 and, therefore, agreed to the proposal put before it. Neither the Chairman nor the Directors, who were present in the said meeting, have been impleaded as respondents. This being so the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the allegations of mala fide, which allegations, in fact, are without merit.
In Federation of Railway Officers Association and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), it has been held as under:
That allegations regarding mala fides cannot be vaguely made and it must be specified and clear. In this context, the concerned Minister who is stated to be involved in the formation of new Zone at Hazipur is not made a party who can meet the allegations.
Besides, the impugned order shows that District Magistrate has also referred to various other facts, namely petitioner is a habitual criminal person and anti-social elements used to visit his residence regularly. In the entire writ petition, this fact has not been disputed that anti-social elements do not come to petitioner''s residence. In the totality of facts and circumstances, I do not find any error apparent on face of record warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Dismissed.