Back
2010 Supreme(All) 614
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Devi Prasad Singh, J.
Ram Bujharat Singh -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. -Respondent
W. P. (M/S) No. 2081 of 2006
Decided On : 16-02-2010
C.S.C., Onkar Pandey
The cancellation of an arm licence under the Arms Act should be based on the individual conduct of the licensee and the presence of evidence linking the licensee to any criminal activities.
Headnote:
Arms Act - Cancellation of Arm Licence - Section 17
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's arm licence for S.B.B.L. gun was cancelled by the District Magistrate under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, due to the criminal history of the petitioner's son. The petitioner's son had passed away, and the petitioner challenged the cancellation of the arm licence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the arm licence was not justified solely based on the criminal history of the petitioner's son. The court emphasized that the licensing authority failed to consider the individual conduct of the licensee and did not provide sufficient evidence linking the licensee to the criminal activities of the son. The court also noted that the appeal against the cancellation was dismissed as time-barred, but the court decided to consider the appeal on its merits.
Issues: The issues involved the cancellation of the arm licence under Section 17 of the Arms Act, based on the criminal history of the petitioner's son, and the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of the arm licence should be based on the individual conduct of the licensee and the presence of evidence linking the licensee to any criminal activities. The court also decided to consider the appeal on its merits despite being dismissed as time-barred.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and a writ in the nature of certiorari was issued, quashing the impugned orders and directing the restoration of the petitioner's arm licence.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide the present writ petition finally at admission stage.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved with the impugned orders, by which his licence for S.B.B.L. gun has been cancelled by the District Magistrate in pursuance to power conferred by Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959(in short Act) which has been affirmed by appellate Court.
3. The ground for cancellation of arm licence is that the petitioner's son Shri Nirbhay Singh possess checkered history and is a history sheeter in the police record at serial No.103 A. A show cause notice was served and after receipt of the reply, the arm licence has been cancelled on the ground that the possession of arm by the petitioner may be detrimental to law and order because of the petitioner's son being a history sheeter. The District Magistrate while passing the impugned order dated 3.9.2004, as contained in Annexure No.1, observed that there is apprehension of breach of peace and the petitioner's arm licence may be misused by his son who is alleged to be a history sheeter. Though the petitioner has tried to defend his cause inviting attention to a newspaper report dated 13.10.2002 with submission that his son is living separately but it could find favour with the district administration. The petitioner has further tried to defend himself by furnishing rashion card as well as extract of Pariwar Register to establish his submission with regard to separate living from his son. However, the District Magistrate has disbelieved the submission of the petitioner with regard to separate living and cancelled the arm licence on the ground that the gun may be misused by his history sheeter son.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's son Nirbhay Singh expired on 25.9.2004 and since he does not survive, the only ground on which the arm licence was cancelled does not exist.
5. Suspension and revocation of licence by the licensing authority may be done in pursuance to the provisions contained in Sub Section (3) of Section 17 of the Act which provides that the licensing authority may suspend an arm licence for specified period or revoke a licence in case the authority deems it necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety or the licence has been obtained by suppression of material information. For convenience, the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act is reproduced as under:
17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences
(1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice.
(2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed.
(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such periods 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 for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or
(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or
(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or
(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or
(e) if the
