SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(P&H) 1410

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar and Viney Mittal JJ.
Gurdial Singh
Versus
Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division
Civil Writ Petition No. 16163 of 2001,
Decided On : DECEMBER 19, 2002

The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering all relevant evidence, including police reports and the petitioner's clean record, in cases involving the cancellation of arms licences.

Headnote:

Arms Licence - Cancellation - 315 bore rifle - [Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the cancellation of the arms licence under the relevant provisions of the Arms Act and the rules made thereunder. The court highlighted the importance of police reports and the need for their consideration in such matters. The court also emphasized the significance of the petitioner's clean record since obtaining the arms licence in 1972.]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Gurdial Singh, sought the quashing of orders cancelling his arms licence, citing political rivalry and false complaints as the basis for the cancellation. The District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner had ordered the cancellation of the arms licence, which the petitioner contested through the present petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found in favor of the petitioner, highlighting the lack of evidence of misuse of the arms licence and the political nature of the complaints against the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of considering police reports and the petitioner's clean record since obtaining the arms licence in 1972.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the cancellation of the arms licence, the nature of the complaints against the petitioner, and the consideration of relevant evidence in reaching the decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence of misuse of the arms licence, the political nature of the complaints, and the failure to consider the petitioner's clean record and police reports. The court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence and the petitioner's history since obtaining the arms licence.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashing the orders for the cancellation of the arms licence.

Judgment

Viney Mittal, J.

1. The petitioner Gurdial Singh has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated March 30, 2001 Annexure P5 passed by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana and order dated May 14, 2001 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, whereby the arms licence issued to the petitioner for 315 bore rifle No. 3680 with nine cartridges of 315 bore has been ordered to be cancelled. The aforesaid orders have been appended as Annexures P5 and P7 respectively with the present petition.

2. Certain facts may be noticed. The petitioner states that he remained Sarpanch of village Kartarpur, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana for a period of 20 years. During the last elections, the post of Sarpanch of the village was reserved for a lady Sarpanch and, as such, the petitioner could not contest the aforesaid elections. Instead, Smt. Jatinder Kaur wife of Paramjit Singh who is the nephew of the petitioner contested for the aforesaid post. She was opposed by one Smt. Jaswinder Kaur. After election, the aforesaid Smt. Jaswinder Kaur was declared elected. Because of the aforesaid political rivalry, the petitioner claims, the aforesaid Smt. Jaswinder Kaur had been nursing a grudge against him.

3. The petitioner further claims that the aforesaid Smt. Jaswinder Singh along with her husband started committing irregularities in the conduct of affairs of gram panchayat. A complaint was filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid Smt. Jaswinder Kaur to the Director Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh in April 2000. The matter was marked for enquiry to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer.

4. According to the petitioner, as a counter blast to the aforesaid complaint, the aforesaid Sarpanch Smt. Jaswinder Kaur alongwith some other Panchayat members reported against him that he was trying to encroach upon the panchayat land which was stated to be in front of his house and that on objection having been raised by the Sarpanch and the aforesaid Panchayat members, he threatened with the said licensed gun. Under the circumstances, a complaint was made by the aforesaid Sarpanch and the Ranches to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner.

5. In response to the said complaint, the District Magistrate respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for the cancellation of his arms licence. The petitioner appeared before the District Magistrate and explained his entire position. He specifically contended before the District Magistrate that he had never misused his licensed gum nor any criminal case is pending in this regard, The allegation with regard to making any encroachment upon the panchayat land was also specifically denied.

6. The petitioner further states that during the period of militancy in the State of Punjab he had helped the police to identify the miscreants and was even attacked by the extremists. Upon this, he was provided with the security covers and even the police post was set up at his house. The petitioner has even attached a copy of the site plan An-nexure P2 with the present petition whereby it is shown that there was no panchayat land in front of his house as there is only a road in front of his house. The petitioner further maintains in the petition that on the directions of the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, the police had also verified the allegations levelled against the Sarpanch and the Panchayat members and found no truth in that. The copies of two police reports dated September 2, 2000 and December 7, 200 have been appended as Annexures P.3 and P4, respectively with the present petition. The petitioner complains that in spite of the aforesaid two reports in favour of the petitioner, the District Magistrate, without taking into consideration the said reports, vide order dated March 30, 2001, has ordered the cancellation of his arms licence and directed that the licence and ammunition be














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top