ASHOK VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his license for carrying the firearm be not cancelled. On 3/6/2015, the petitioner had appeared before the District Magistrate, Varanasi. However, even before a reply was filed the firearm license was cancelled on 27/6/2017. The petitioner filed a Review Application, which was also dismissed on 12/7/2017. When, however, the Review Application was also dismissed, the petitioner challenged the orders dtd. 27/6/2017 and 12/7/2017 before the Appellate Forum and the Appeal was ultimately allowed on 5/3/2015 and the matter was remanded back to the District Magistrate, Varanasi. When the District Magistrate, Varanasi refused to interfere in the matter, after the matter was remanded back, the instant writ petition has been filed against the order dtd. 13/8/2018 as also against the cancellation order dtd. 27/6/2015.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the District Magistrate had set-aside the order dtd. 12/7/2015 and had restored the Review Application, the Review/Recall Application ought to have been heard. He submits that it was incumbent upon the District Magistrate to have heard the Review Application, specially when the Appellate Court had returned a definite finding that the earlier order dtd. 27/6/2015 was passed without hearing the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2018(11) SCC 470; (Seri Infrastructure Finance Limited vs. Tuff Drilling Private Limited) has observed that when a review was sought owing to the fact that the quasi judicial Authority had not afforded proper opportunity of hearing then Review Application was definitely maintainable.