Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
KSHIRODE CHANDRA PAL - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HOWRAH - Respondent
Civil Rule 655 Of 1953
Decided On : JANUARY 10, 1955
ARMS ACT - SECTION 18 - CANCELLATION OF LICENSE - REASONS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING - ORDER NOT COMPLYING WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS - WRIT OF MANDAMUS NOT ISSUED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's firearm license was cancelled by the District Magistrate without recording reasons in writing as required by Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1878. The petitioner challenged the cancellation order through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the cancellation order was not in compliance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1878, as the District Magistrate had not recorded reasons in writing for the cancellation. The court also held that the petitioner did not have a right of appeal against the cancellation order at the relevant time.
Issues: 1. Whether the cancellation order was valid in the absence of reasons recorded in writing by the District Magistrate? 2. Whether the petitioner had a right of appeal against the cancellation order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the cancellation order was not valid as it did not comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1878, which requires the District Magistrate to record reasons in writing for the cancellation of a license. 2. The court held that the petitioner did not have a right of appeal against the cancellation order at the relevant time as the Indian Arms Rules 1951, which provided for an appeal against cancellation orders, were not in force at the time the order was passed.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and discharged the rule without any order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is a resident of Pansila, P. S. Shyampur in the district of Howrah. He was a holder of firearm license No. 1167 in respect of a 12 bore DBBL gun No. 5383. This gun was sold by him to Sri Panchanan Adhikary, another license holder in the town of Tamluk on 15-1-1953. On 16-1-1953, he appears to have informed the District Magistrate of this fact and forwarded a copy of the letter to the Officer-in-charge of Shyampore Police station. On 26-1-1953, he received a notice or a communication from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shyampore Police station, set out in para 5 of the petition. It appears from this document, which is described as a notice that it is recorded that the fire-arm license of the petitioner had been seized, having been cancelled under the Howrah District Magistrate's office Memo No. 1697-C dated the 24-12-1952 and S. P. /d. I. B. office Memo No. 3 (2)/34-48 (2) 419 dated 30-12-1952. On 2-2-1953, the petitioner wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, Howrah, complaining of this so-called notice. The grievance was that in the notice no reasons had been recorded in writing as to why the license had been cancelled. It was further stated that unless the reasons were communicated, it would not be possible for the petitioner to make any representation to the appropriate authority against the seizure or cancellation of the license. The petitioner requested the District Magistrate to Intimate to him at his earliest convenience the reasons in writing for the cancellation of the license and to give him an opportunity of making a representation against the reasons communicated to him. There was no reply to this letter.
( 2 ) THIS Rule was issued on 9-3-1953 calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not issue to the opposite parties directing them to cancel, withdraw and/or revoke the order of cancellation of the fire-arm license of the petitioner as embodied in the Howrah District Magistrate's office Memo No. 1697-C dated 24-12-1952, and S. P. /d. I. B. office Memo No. 3 (2)/ 34-48 (2)/419 dated 30-12-1952 complained of in the petition, or why such other or further order or orders should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
( 3 ) FROM the affidavits filed it appears that the notice complained of is not an order of cancellation at all. What happened was as follows:
( 4 ) ON 20-12-1952 the court Inspector, Uluberia, made a report to the District Magistrate, Howrah, through the Superintendent of Police, Howrah, to the effect that there was very great tension prevailing in Pansila area and there was every likelihood of a riot breaking out. According to the report, there were two party factions in the village, one led by the petitioner and another led by Janab Basirul Huq of the Muslimpara. It was also mentioned that one Razaqul Huq, an undesirable person, had joined the party led by the petitioner and there was a certain incident of firing of the petitioner's gun. There were several Criminal proceedings pending in consequence, but the emergent situation was that there was an apprehension of a riot breaking out. This report prayed that the license of the petitioner should be cancelled and the local police should be directed to seize his gun and ammunitions for sending them to the Court. The Superintendent of Police. D. I. B. , Howrah, also endorsed this view, adding that the petitioner had been threatening people with his gun and that it was not safe to allow this man to possess a gun any longer. It was recommended that he should be directed to deposit his gun with the license at the Police Station at once. Upon this, on 24-12-1952. the District Magistrate, Howrah, made the following order:"i am satisfied from the materials contained in the report submitted by the police that it would be undesirable, in the interest of the security of the public peace, to allow Sri Kshirode Chandra Pal, son of late Bhutnath Pal of Pansila, P. S. Shy
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
