Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) WRIT petition is directed against the order dated 12.8.2005 passed by District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar cancelling firearm licence of petitioner and the appellate order dated 16.6.2008 confirming the said order in appeal.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submitted that three criminal cases, which are foundation of passing the impugned order, were initiated by one Station In -charge who was posted in 2005 in the concerned area and those proceedings were all malicious. Prior to posting of Hari Prasad Yadav and after his transfer, no criminal case has ever been registered against petitioner and it shows that the impugned order has been passed on account of malicious proceedings initiated against petitioner by Hari Prasad Yadav. Before entering the plea of mala fide, it is necessary that the person against whom allegations of mala fide are made is impleaded eo -nomine. In the case in hand, no one has been impleaded by petitioner by eo -nomine.. It is well settled that the plea of mala fide can neither be entertained nor shall be permitted to be raised in the absence of a person against whom such allegations are made.
(3.) IN State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 in para 55 of the judgment, the Apex Court held: - It is a settled law that the person against whom mala fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded eo nominee as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those allegations would be made. Otherwise it itself is violative of the principles of natural justice as it amounts to condemning a person without an opportunity. Admittedly, both R.K. Singh and G.N. Sharma were not impleaded. On this ground alone the High Court should have stopped enquiry into the allegation of mala fides or bias alleged against them.;