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

1985 Supreme(All) 186

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
M. N. SHUKLA, CJ., H. N. SETH, M. WAHAJUDDIN, R. P. SHUKLA, A. N. DIKSHITA, JJ.
KAILASH NATH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 9379 Of 1984
Decided On : 05/13/1985

Advocates Appeared:
V.D.OJHA, VIJAY BAHUGUNA

( 1 ) WE allow the petitioners two weeks time from today to file their representations or objections before the District Magistrate, Banda and order the District Magistrate to decide the same within three weeks from the date of filing such representations or objections. It is not necessary to set aside the impugned order and we accordingly dispose of these writ petitions without passing any such formal order. There will be no order as to costs. M. N. SHUKLA, C. J. (on behalf of himself and on behalf of WAHAJUDDIN and R. P. SHUKLA AND A. N. DIKSHITA, JJ.):- These two cases involve important questions interlinked with the daily lives of people, abiding in a civilised society, the executive authorities entrusted with the sovereign duty of maintaining law and order, extending certain privileges to citizens of the State who actuated by a desire to protect themselves may desire to procure arms for themselves, the necessity of regulating and controlling such privileges by rules of law and procedure, and making them liable to be withdrawn, altered or abridged on the non-fulfilment of certain conditions or the supervention of new factors. The orders impeached in these cases are orders passed by the executive authorities, significantly purporting to have been passed under the legal sanction derived from a Full Bench decision of this Court in Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of U. P. , 1984 All WC 145. That decision was rendered by a Full Bench of three Judges and consequently the hearing of the present writ petitions has necessitated constitution of a Full Bench of five Judges of this Court to decide the question of law canvassed before us. The thrust of the argument has been both on the interpretation and validity of the law laid down in Chhanga Prasad Sahus case (supra ). In that judgment the following observations occur :"as already explained, if there already is material before that licensing authority and it becomes apparent to it that possession of arms by the licensee is going to endanger public peace and safety, it can straightway and without holding any enquiry proceed to revoke/suspend the arms licence after recording reasons therefor and if the licensee is aggrieved by such orders, he will have a right to ventilate his grievance before the appellate authority. However, if there is no such material before the licensing authority and it is not apparent to it that there is an immediate danger to public peace and safety and it, on some information being laid before it, proceeds to find out whether there is any likelihood of public peace and safety being affected at some future date, it cannot be said that there is any such urgency so as to justify the revocation/cancellation of the licence even before the licensing authority gets so satisfied. In the circumstances, considering the nature and the object of the enquiry which a licensing authority is required to make for finding out if the facts justifying passing of an order for revocation/suspension of licence exist, it cannot be said that non-conferment of the power to suspend an arms licence pending enquiry has the effect of defeating the object for which such a power has been conferred upon the licensing authority. "this passage perhaps forms the bedrock of the assumption which the District Magistrates have made that the power resides in them to cancel an arms licence without notice to the licensee.

( 2 ) THE facts of the present cases which lie in a short compass may be briefly stated. Writ Petition No. 9379 of 1984 has been filed by six petitioners who have prayed for quashing of six orders respectively by which the District Magistrate, Banda cancelled their gun licence and directed them to deposit their weapons forthwith. Likewise the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9394 of 1984 has prayed for quashing of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Banda whereby the petitioners gun licence was cancelled and he was directed to surrender his gun. The aforesaid order passed by the



























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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top