Back
2010 Supreme(All) 3492
[2010(9) ADJ 388 (LB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : ANIL KUMAR, J.
AWADHESH KUMAR PANDEY ….Petitioner
Versus
COMMISSIONER,LUCKNOW DIVISION, LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER ….Respondents
(Misc. Single Case No. 2264 of 2007, decided on 1st October, 2010)
Counsel :
Vivek Manishi Shukla for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:Arms Act, 1959—Section 17—Cancellation of licence—Legality of—Petitioner involved in two criminal cases—Petitioner's licence cancelled on the basis of report submitted by Superintendent of Police, which was not given to petitioner—Under Section 17, the arms licence could be cancelled or suspended on the ground when the licencing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or the public safety—While passing the impugned order neither the District Magistrate nor the appellate authority recorded the finding as to how and what circumstances, the possession of arms licence by the petitioner would detrimental to the public peace or public safety—Merely because criminal cases pending would not attract the provision of Section 17 of the Act—Impugned order liable to be quashed. [Paras 15, 20 and 21]
Result; Petition Allowed.
Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Vivek Manishi Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. By means of present writ petition, the impugned orders dated 21.12.2005 and 14.9.2006 passed by the respondent No. 1 i.e. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and order dated 28.5.2003 passed by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Sitapur are under challenge.
3. Facts in brief as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner was holder of licence No. 798 Double Barrel Gun, granted by the licensing authority/District Magistrate, Sitapur.
4. On 23.1.2003, petitioner received a show-cause-notice issued by the licensing authority/District Magistrate, Sitapur that why the licence should not be cancelled and his licence was also suspended. On 5.2.2003, petitioner submitted reply in response to the show-cause-notice dated 23.1.2003. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.5.2003 petitioner’s licence was cancelled.
5. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for recall/restoration of the said order, dismissed vide order dated 14.9.2006 by the appellate authority/Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, hence the present writ petition has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned orders in question submits that the order passed by the appellate authority dated 21.12.2005 by which the petitioner’s appeal has been dismissed is a non-speaking order and passed without application of mind, as such the same is arbitrary in nature, in violation of principles of natural justice.
7. He further submits that the Licensing Authority/District Magistrate, Sitapur had cancelled the petitioner’s licence vide order dated 28.5.2003 on the basis of a report dated 14.1.2003 submitted by Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, copy of the said report was not given to the petitioner, accordingly the non-supply of the material/report dated 14.1.2003 renders the impugned order without jurisdiction.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as a matter of fact and record, two cases namely Case Crime No. 174/89 and 135/95 which are the basis of passing of the impugned order of cancellation of his arm licence in both the cases he has been acquitted.
9. Further, there is no finding in the impugned orders about the imminent danger to public peace and safety due to the involvement of the petitioner in alleged criminal cases, but the impugned order of cancellation passed by the respondent No. 2 in ‘Janhit’; the said action is per se illegal and in contravention to the provisions as provided under Section 17 of the Arms Act.
10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following judgments.
1. Fuzail Ahmad v. Commissioner Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad and others, 2001(19) LCD 1.
2. Ram Murti Madhukar v. District Magistrate, Sitapur, 1998 (16) LCD 905.
3. Ram Sanehi v. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division Gonda and another, 2004(22) LCD 1643.
4. Mohd. Haroon v. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, 2003(21) LCD 548.
5. Hari Kant @ Raja v. State of U.P. and others, 2002(1) JIC 714(All).
6. Raghubir Singh v. Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi and others, 2002(2)JIC 987(All).
7. Ram Karpal Singh v. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and others, 2006(24) LCD 114.
8. Satish Singh v. District Magistrate, Sultanpur, 2009(4) ADJ 33 (LB).
11. On the strength of the said judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Arm licence No. 798 cancelled only on the ground of ‘Janhit’ cannot be cancelled under the provisions as provided under Section 17 of the Arms Act, so the instant writ petition liable to be allowed.
12. Sri Suresh Panjwani, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
