[2009(6) ADJ 326]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : S.P. MEHROTRA, J.
SUNIL SINGH ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31244 of 2007, decided on 29th April, 2009)
(B) Arms Act, 1959—Section 17—Licence—Suspension of—Power of Licensing Authority—Held, the Licensing Authority has power to suspend or revoke the licence, if such authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. [Para 22]
Honble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 10.4.2007 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition) passed by the District Magistrate, Chandauli (respondent No. 3) and the order dated 30.6.2007 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi (respondent No. 2).
2. It is, inter alia, averred in the Writ Petition that the petitioner is a licence-holder of 12 Bore D.B.B.L. Gun; and that the licence of the said Gun was issued having Licence No. 8017 in favour of the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Varanasi on 1.10.1994 after completing all the required formalities; and that the said Gun Licence was renewed by the authority concerned till 31.12.2009.
3. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that the petitioner never misused his licensed Gun since 1994, and no complaint of misuse of Gun was ever made against him by any person; and that the petitioner is a businessman and the area, to which he belongs, is naxalite-affected area, therefore, for his safety purpose the petitioner applied for Gun licence, and the same was issued to him.
4. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that on 10.3.2007, the Police of Police Station Balua, District-Chandauli submitted a Report against the petitioner recommending for cancellation of his Gun licence; and that in the said Report, the concerned Police Station has submitted that the petitioner is a man of criminal nature and he is involved in (1) Case Crime No. 56 of 2005, under Sections 323, 504, I.P.C., Police Station Balua, District-Chandauli, and (2) Case Crime No. 98 of 2006, under Sections 420, 485, 486, 487, 488, I.P.C. and Section 63 of the Copy Rights Act, Police Station Balua, District-Chandauli.
5. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that the aforesaid Report was submitted by the concerned Police Station to the Superintendent of Police, Chandauli, who, by his letter dated 16.3.2007, recommended to the District Magistrate, Chandauli for cancellation of Fire Arm Licence of the petitioner.
6. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that in pursuance of the letter dated 16.3.2007 of the Superintendent of Police, Chandauli, and the Police Report dated 10.3.2007 of the Police Station Balua, the District Magistrate, Chandauli issued a show-cause notice dated 23.3.2007 to the petitioner.
7. Copy of the said show-cause notice has been filed as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition.
8. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that in reply to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 3.4.2007.
9. Copy of the said explanation dated 3.4.2007 has been filed as Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition.
10. After the submission of the explanation by the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Chandauli passed the order dated 10.4.2007 under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short “the Act”) cancelling the Fire Arm Licence of the petitioner.
11. Copy of the said order dated 10.4.2007 has been filed as Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition.
12. The petitioner, thereupon, filed an Appeal under Section 18 of the Act, being Appeal No. 28 of 2007. The Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi (respondent No. 2) by the order dated 30.6.2007 dismissed the said Appeal filed by the petitioner.
13. Copy of the said order dated 30.6.2007 has been filed as Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition.
14. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.
15. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit.
16. I have heard Shri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the record.
17. It is submitted by Shri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner that t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.