CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Prabhu Dayal Yadav vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 26 July 2001 · Citation: (2001) 07 AHC CK 0130

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bhanwar Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arms Act, 1959 — Section 17
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 2008 (M/S) of 2001
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 164 words

Bhanwar Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for theopposite parties.

2.

The petitioner is under a notice from the officiating District Magistrate, Rai Bareilly to showcause as to why his licence to hold gun should not be cancelled. The officiating District Magistrate has also directed the petitioner to deposit his gun with the Superintendent of Police, Rai Bareilly. It remains undisputed that a District Magistrate has no authority to order for deposit of the gun unless the licence has been cancelled. Since the petitioner has only been served with a notice and he has a right to file his objection against the showcause notice, a direction asking the petitioner to deposit his fire arm is illegal.

3.

Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds in part. A writ ofcertiorari quashing the second part of the notice asking the petitioner to deposit his gun is issued. However, the petitioner can file his reply to the notice for redressal of his grievance.