Allahabad High Court
SATISH CHANDRA YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that there is no illegality in the order revoking the petitioner’s arms licence.
Summary
Satish Chandra Yadav filed a writ petition challenging the revocation of his arms licence by the Licensing Authority. The licence was revoked because the petitioner failed to appear before the Licensing Authority and did not submit required documents to the Appellate Authority, which affirmed the revocation. The petitioner is involved in six criminal cases, some of which he claims to have been acquitted of, but he did not furnish the acquittal judgments. The Court found no illegality in the revocation order and noted that, should the petitioner obtain acquittal in all cases, he may approach the Licensing Authority with the judgments. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may seek relief from the Licensing Authority if he can prove his acquittals.
Issues considered
- Whether the revocation of the arms licence by the Licensing Authority is illegal in view of the petitioner's non‑appearance and pending criminal cases.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- arms licence
- revocation
- licensing authority
- criminal cases
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 27783 of 2025
Satish Chandra Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satya Narayan Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State.
2. Proceedings in present writ petition is arising out under provisions of Arms Act.
The petitioner has not appeared before Licensing Authority, therefore, Licensing
Authority has revoked his arms license. Petitioner has not placed relevant documents
before Appellate Authority, therefore, Appellate Authority has affirmed order of
Licensing Authority.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has not denied a fact that petitioner is involved in six
criminal cases and has referred that in some cases, order of acquittal has been passed,
however, judgments thereof are not annexed along with present writ petition. Even
learned counsel has not submitted details thereof before Appellate Authority.
4. In view of above, Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order.
5. However, in case petitioner has been granted acquittal in all criminal cases, he is at
liberty to approach Licensing Authority by placing judgments on record and
thereafter, the Licensing Authority will consider the same in terms of a judgment of
Indrajeet Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021:AHC:120898.
6. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations and liberty.
September 14, 2026
N. Sinha
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…