The court upheld the licensing authority's decision to suspend the arms licence, emphasizing public safety and the validity of subjective satisfaction in administrative actions under the Arms Act.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Nanda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Rout, learned ASC for State – Opposite Parties.

2. The Petitioner, who was holding Arms Licence No. 257/2002/Cuttack, has approached this court against the order of the authority dated 3^rd September, 2020 under Annexure-4 thereby suspending his arms licence with direction to surrender the arms. The said order of the authority under Annexure-4 having been challenged before the appellate authority, has been confirmed vide order dated 8^th January, 2024 under Annexure-8. Both the orders are challenged in the present writ petition.

3. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner was the holder of Arms Licence No.257/2002/Cuttack granted by the Collector and Arms Magistrate, Cuttack vide order dated 22^nd October, 2001. The Petitioner by profession is a businessman and after availing arms licence in his favour he possessed two fire arms, one a .32 bore revolver along with ammunitions and another a .32 bore NPB pistol along with ammunitions.

4. Before grant of licence in the year 2002, the Petitioner was involved in Kharavelanagar P.S. Case No.250 dated 1^st October, 2001 registered under Section 47 (a) of the Bihar and Odisha Excise Act for illegal possession of huge quantity of IMFL liquor. Subsequently he was also involved in Bhubaneswar EOW P.S. Case No.22 dated 31^st October, 2018 registered for commission of offences under Section 420 /467/468/471/406 of I.P.C. on the report lodged by the Bank authority.

5. After coming to know about involvement of the Petitioner in criminal cases and considering the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack vide his order dated 3^rd September, 2020 suspended the arms licence of the Petitioner in exercise of his power under Section 17(3) of the ARMS ACT after considering the show cause reply submitted by the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner preferred appeal which was also rejected under Annexure-8.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that though his involvement in two criminal cases, as stated above, are not disputed but the fact remains that none of such cases alleges misuse of fire arms in committing those offences. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is having a licensed IMFL shop at Bhubaneswar and therefore, his involvement for alleged commission of offence under the Bihar and Odisha Excise Act would have no connection with possession of the fire arm. Secondly, the case of fraud as alleged by the Bank authority in EOW P.S. Case No.22/2018 has also no connection with possession of the fire arm with the Petitioner and in fact said case has been negotiated with the Bank authorities in the meantime. Therefore the apprehension raised by the authority to suspend his arms license is without any basis and unsupported by substantial material.

7. As seen from the impugned order under Annexure-4, the competent authority in exercise of his discretion under Section 17(3) of the ARMS ACT has suspended the license of the Petitioner as the same was considered essential in public interest. Clause (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 17 authorizes the licensing authority to suspend the arms license for such period or to revoke the license, if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety. For better appreciation Section 17(3) is reproduced bellow:-

“17. Xx .. xx ….

(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence-

(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law