Madhya Pradesh High Court
MP/1913/2018 of SMT. MUNNIDEVI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IVON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 1913 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
SMT. MUNNIDEVI W/O RAMDAS GURJAR, AGEDABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, R/OBARAGHATA KE PASS LASHKAR, GWALIOR
(NONE FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI M.P.S. RAGHUVANSHI - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALWITH SHRI G.K. AGRAWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THERESPONDENT/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved with order of District Magistrate, Gwalior dated 24.4.2017 passed in Case No.Q/RDM/9-5/15/17 whereby the DistrictMagistrate, Gwalior suspended her gun license No.1057/2008 till disposal ofCriminal Case Crime No.94/2017, upheld by Commissioner, Gwalior Division,Gwalior by its order dated 21.8.2017 passed in Case No.58/16-17/Appeal/Arms, dismissing the appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the respondent/State and perused the record.
3. Perusal of impugned order reflects that the petitioner was not heard,she was not given an opportunity of hearing, and ex parte, her license wassuspended by the District Magistrate, Gwalior. In appeal there against also didnot consider this aspect. Perusal of impugned order of the Commissioner,Gwalior Division, Gwalior shows that the appellant/petitioner was again also notheard in appeal. She was absent when the case was heard. LearnedCommissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior should not have decided the appealon merit if she or her Advocate was not present, it should have been dismissedfor non-prosecution.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General assisted by GovernmentAdvocate appearing on behalf of the State of M.P. concedes the legal position.Both the impugned orders are not tenable in the eye of law.
5. In view of above, both the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.
District Magistrate, Gwalior is directed to decide the case afresh after giving fullopportunity of hearing to the petitioner within four months without beingprejudiced with any observations made in the order. It is clarified that this Courthas not considered the merit of the case and District Magistrate shall decide thecase on its merit.
6. With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of.
(alok)
(RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV)JUDGE