The licensing authority has the power to revoke or suspend a licence if satisfied that the holder of the licence is unfit to hold a licence under the Arms Act, 1959.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. In this application, the petitioner is desirous of issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 23-9-91 passed by respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in M.P. Case No. 44/90 whereby the arms licence No. 1039 of Purnea for gun and arms licence No. 141/76 of Patna for revolver issued in his favour have been cancelled and also the order dated 3-3-92 passed by respondent No. 3, the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Dhanbad Arms Appeal No. 67/91 by which the petitioners appeal against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.

2. The petitioners case is that the aforementioned arms belonging * to the petitioners were seized by the Town Inspector of Police, Jharia, district-Dhanbad under the orders and directions of the then Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad and a proceeding for cancellation of arms licences of the petitioner was started by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the licensing Authority). The petitioner appeared and filed show cause. However, the licensing authority, in terms of the order dated 10-9-97, directed the petitioner to move again after disposal of criminal case pending against him for release of the licence. The petitioner contended that after the criminal case being Kanke P.S. Case No. 23(5) 73 corresponding to G.R. No. 1234/73 was disposed of and the petitioner was acquitted, he again made an application before the licensing authority for release of his aforementioned arms. The licensing authority called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad who reported that the petitioner has been acquitted. The licensing authority also called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi who also reported that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and there was nothing adverse against him. The licensing authority, however, after hearing the petitioner, passed the impugned order cancelling the arms licences of the petitioner. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the licensing authority.

3. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the licence of the petitioner could not have been cancelled when the petitioner was either acquitted or discharged in the criminal cases. According to the learned Counsel, in absence of sufficient material to the effect that the petitioner was involved in offences involving danger to security of public safety and tranquility, the impugned order of cancellation of licence cannot be sustained in law. Learned Counsel lastly submitted that the licensing authority exceeded in exercise of his jurisdiction inasmuch as on the report of the Superintendent of Police of Dhanbad arid Ranchi districts the licensing authority had no option but to release the arms of the petitioner which were seized in connection with a criminal case.

4. Before appreciating the contentions raised by the learned Counsel it would be useful to look into the relevant provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 , Sec. 17 of the Act empowers the licensing authority to revoke or suspend the licence if the licensing authority is satisfied, besides other facts, that the holder of licence for any reason is unfit to hold a licence under the Act. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that there must be subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority that the holder of licence is not fit to continue holding of licence. In my opinion therefore, if the licensing authority is satisfied of the fact that continued existence of fire arms licences with a person charged with various offences may endanger security of public peace and public safety, then revocation or cancellation of licence under Sec. 17 cannot be said to be arbitrary