Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Nagendra Rai and N.K.Sinha JJ.
Jagdamba Singh @ Markandya Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction No. 311 of 1991 ;
Decided On : MAY 06, 1993
ARMS ACT - SECTION 17(3) - CANCELLATION OF LICENCE - SUSPENSION OF LICENCE - NATURAL JUSTICE - HEARING - URGENT SITUATION - PUBLIC PEACE - PUBLIC SAFETY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - WRIT PETITION - QUASHING OF ORDER - RESTORATION OF LICENCE - ARMS ACT, 1959 - SECTION 17(3).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a holder of a license for a rifle, was issued a notice by the Deputy Collector-in-Charge, Law Section, Rohtas, asking him to show cause as to why his license should not be canceled. The notice also informed him that his license had been suspended by the District Magistrate with immediate effect and he was directed to deposit the rifle within a week. The petitioner challenged the notice and the suspension of his license by filing a writ petition, contending that the suspension of the license and the direction to deposit the rifle were in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suspension of the license and the direction to deposit the rifle without affording an opportunity of hearing during the pendency of the cancellation/revocation proceeding on the ground of the pendency of the criminal case was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court further held that the requirement of giving reasons for cancellation or revocation of the license under the Act was mandatory and that the requirement of natural justice of affording an opportunity of hearing had to be complied with by the licensing authority subsequently by giving an opportunity of hearing and making representation against the order of cancellation or evocation.
Issues: 1. Whether the suspension of the license and the direction to deposit the rifle without affording an opportunity of hearing during the pendency of the cancellation/revocation proceeding on the ground of the pendency of the criminal case was in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the requirement of giving reasons for cancellation or revocation of the license under the Act was mandatory. 3. Whether the requirement of natural justice of affording an opportunity of hearing had to be complied with by the licensing authority subsequently by giving an opportunity of hearing and making representation against the order of cancellation or evocation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suspension of the license and the direction to deposit the rifle without affording an opportunity of hearing during the pendency of the cancellation/revocation proceeding on the ground of the pendency of the criminal case was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court relied on the fact that there was no specific provision in Section 17 of the Arms Act authorizing the licensing authority to cancel or suspend the license during the pendency of a criminal case. The court also relied on the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Kapildeo Singh v. State of Bihar, which held that registration and pendency of a criminal case for major or capital offence may for adequate reasons justify the suspension or revocation of a license under Section 17(3)(a). 2. The court held that the requirement of giving reasons for cancellation or revocation of the license under the Act was mandatory. The court relied on Sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Arms Act, which requires the licensing authority to record in writing the reasons for cancellation or revocation of license and furnish to the holder of the license on demand a brief statement of the same. 3. The court held that the requirement of natural justice of affording an opportunity of hearing had to be complied with by the licensing authority subsequently by giving an opportunity of hearing and making representation against the order of cancellation or evocation. The court relied on the fact that the rules of natural justice are not the ends in themselves, they are means to achieve ends of justice. The court also relied on the fact that in public interest and in emergent situation the observance of natural justice can be excluded absolutely or it can be regulated in such a way which would preserve the rule of law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition in part and quashed the part of the orders, as contained in Annexures-1 and D, suspending the license of the license-holder and directing him to deposit the rifle. The court also directed the District Magistrate to dispose of the revocation proceeding within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of the judgment.
Nagendra Rai, J.
1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the notice dated 4-7-1991 (Annexure-2) issued by the Deputy Collector-in-Charge, Law Section, Rohtas, by which he has asked the petitioner to show cause as to why his licence for rifle, bearing No. 671/5-86 be not cancelled. The petitioner was also informed by the said notice that his licence has been suspended by the District Magistrate with immediate effect and he has been directed to deposit the rifle within a week in the police station or to the authorised arms dealers.
2. The necessary facts leading to the filing of the present Writ application are that the petitioner is a holder of licence for rifle granted by the District Magistrate, Sasaram. On 29-7-1989 one Krishnadeo Singh filed a written report before the Officer-in-charge of Baddi Police Station, stating, inter alia, that on the same day, i.e. 20-7-1989, the petitioner armed with rifle along with other five unknown persons armed with fire-arms came at his plot No. 215 and started ploughing the land by the Tractor in which paddy crops were transplanted. On protest made by him the petitioner filed rifle shot which passed by side of his left shoulder, as a result of which he fell down. His life was saved due to intervention of the persons present there.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report Shivsagar (Baddi) P.S. Case No. 83/89 dated 2-8-1989 was instituted against the petitioner. During die investigation of the case, the Superintendent of Police directed the Investigation Officer to submit a proposal for the cancellation of the licence of the petitioner and thereafter the Officer-in-Charge, Baddi, sent a proposal on 12-3-1991 for cancellation of licence of the petitioner and the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, forwarded the same to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate after perusal of the same found that the petitioner has misused the fire-arm and has violated the terms and conditions of the licence and, accordingly, he passed an order on 1-7-1991 for issuance of a show cause notice to me petitioner for cancellation of his licence and suspended the licence with immediate effect and further directed the petitioner to deposit the rifle with the police or authorised dealers and in case of non-compliance of the said order by the petitioner the Officer-in-charge, Shivsagar was directed to seize the fire-arm of the petitioner and deposit the same in Malkhana. A true copy of the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate has been annexed as Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector issued the notice in pursuance of the same which has been made Annexure-2 to the Writ application.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the suspension of the licence for rifle during the pendency of the proceeding for cancellation of the licence as well as the direction to deposit (he fire-arms is in violation of the principle of natural justice and as such the same is fit to be quashed. According to him though there is a power to suspend the licence Under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act but that power can be exercised only if the petitioner has been given an opportunity of hearing. The aforesaid provision does not authorise the licensing authority to arbitrarily suspend the licence and direct to deposit the arms during the pendency of a proceeding for cancellation of the licence.
5. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, on the oilier hand, contended that the orders suspending or renewing the licence and directing the licensee to deposit the fire-arm can be passed in an emergent situation, like the present one, without observing the principles of natural justice and such power is implicit m Sec. 17(3) of the Arms Act. However, that order will be only a pro visional order and will attain the finality only when an opportunity of hearing is afforded to the licensee subsequently and his objection has
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
