AMANDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dtd. 2/9/2021 whereby the arms license of the petitioner was cancelled by the Licensing Authority as well as the appellate order dtd. 7/11/2022 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) The facts, in brief, in the present case are very interesting inasmuch as a young advocate ' the petitioner ' after enrolling in the noble profession in the year 2018 was charged with an offence under Sec. 188 IPC read with sec. 30 of The Arms Act for carrying arms in the Court premises. In pursuance to the lodging of an FIR against the petitioner, a news item was also published that in the District Judgeship of Barabanki, various persons were carrying arms without there being any restraint whatsoever. The petitioner was subsequently served with a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner as to why the arms license of the petitioner may not be cancelled. The petitioner appears to have not filed a reply. Although, the show-cause notice has not been filed alongwith the writ petition, the same annexed alongwith the counter affidavit filed by the State. As the petitioner neither filed any reply nor did he care to appear during the hearing, the Licensing Authority on the basis of the report submitted coupled with the fact that the petitioner was charged with an offence under Sec. 188 IPC read with Sec. 30 of the Arms Act, proceeded to cancel the arms license of the petitioner. While doing so, the Licensing Authority also noticed the general directions given by the High Court on 2/1/2020 in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.2436 of 2019 'In Re Suo Moto Relating to Security and Protection in All Court Campuses in the State of U.P.'. The petitioner preferred an appeal; an affidavit was also filed in the said appeal, which is on record as Annexure - 3.

(3.) In the said appeal, it was disclosed that the petitioner was a junior advocate enrolled vide Enrollment No.04435/2018 and was a Member of the District Bar Association. It was accepted that the petitioner was carrying the arms in the Court premises and the plea taken was that the petitioner was not aware that he could not carry the arms in the Court premises and thus, there was an error on his part and would not repeat the same in future. It was also stated that the petitioner had taken the arms license and only the petitioner was singled out for initiation of proceedings for cancellation of arms license, which according to the petitioner was an important issue to be considered.