MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri N.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.