RAMA NAND DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19 -10 -2004 passed by appellate authority by which the appellate authority has remanded the matter to the District Magistrate and directed the petitioner to deposit his arm. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 21 -6 -2001 by which the licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate. Against the order passed by District Magistrate cancelling the arm licence, petitioner filed an appeal No. 77 of 2001. The appellate authority remanded the matter to the District Magistrate that fresh decision be taken on merits after calling for report from the police regarding criminal history of the petitioner. The appellate authority further directed that petitioner shall deposit his licence by 30 -10 -2004.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel Sri N.P. Pandey refuting the submission of counsel for the petitioner contended that after suspension of the arm licence the same can be directed to be deposited by the District Magistrate and no illegality has been committed by the appellate authority in directing the petitioner to deposit the arm. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the judgment of this Court in Satish Chandra (supra) does not lay down any such ratio and the judgment having been given on concession is not a precedent.