The duty of the licensing authority to suspend or revoke a license in the interest of public peace and safety, as well as the finding that the right to carry arms is not a fundamental right.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.09.2021 whereby the arms license of the petitioner was cancelled by the Licensing Authority as well as the appellate order dated 07.11.2022 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, in the present case are very interesting inasmuch as a young advocate – the petitioner – after enrolling in the noble profession in the year 2018 was charged with an offence under Section 188 IPC read with section 30 of The Arms Act for carrying arms in the Court premises. In pursuance to the lodging of an FIR against the petitioner, a news item was also published that in the District Judgeship of Barabanki, various persons were carrying arms without there being any restraint whatsoever. The petitioner was subsequently served with a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner as to why the arms license of the petitioner may not be cancelled. The petitioner appears to have not filed a reply. Although, the show-cause notice has not been filed alongwith the writ petition, the same annexed alongwith the counter affidavit filed by the State. As the petitioner neither filed any reply nor did he care to appear during the hearing, the Licensing Authority on the basis of the report submitted coupled with the fact that the petitioner was charged with an offence under Section 188 IPC read with Section 30 of the Arms Act, proceeded to cancel the arms license of the petitioner. While doing so, the Licensing Authority also noticed the general directions given by the High Court on 02.01.2020 in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.2436 of 2019 “In Re Suo Moto Relating to Security and Protection in All Court Campuses in the State of U.P.”. The petitioner preferred an appeal; an affidavit was also filed in the said appeal, which is on record as Annexure - 3.

3. In the said appeal, it was disclosed that the petitioner was a junior advocate enrolled vide Enrollment No.04435/2018 and was a Member of the District Bar Association. It was accepted that the petitioner was carrying the arms in the Court premises and the plea taken was that the petitioner was not aware that he could not carry the arms in the Court premises and thus, there was an error on his part and would not repeat the same in future. It was also stated that the petitioner had taken the arms license and only the petitioner was singled out for initiation of proceedings for cancellation of arms license, which according to the petitioner was an important issue to be considered.

4. The appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed mainly on the ground of the petitioner facing criminal trial vide Case Crime No.644 of 2020 as well as the general directions issued by the High Court with regard to safety requirements in the District Courts.

5. Challenging the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. The main ground pleaded by the petitioner is that right to keep arms is a right necessary for preservation of life, liberty and property. It is further pleaded that right to carry arms is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, which fact has been ignored by the Licensing Authority. It is further pleaded that the life of the petitioner is in danger as he is a practicing advocate and the task of advocacy is very challenging due to annoyance of parties to litigation. It is also argued that while passing the order, the mandate of Section 17(3) of The Arms Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been violated as there is no threat to public peace or public safety.

7. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Vilas versus State of U.P. & Ors., Neutral Citation No. 2023 AHC 139246 wherein this Court had the occasion to consider the power of cancellation only on account of pendency of the case, more so, in the light of mandate of Secti