Possession of arms license is not a fundamental right, and review jurisdiction cannot be used to reargue a case based on previously undisclosed facts.

JUDGMENT

Anand Pathak, J. - Heard on I.A.No.4605/2020, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

The review petition is barred by 6 days and reasons are assigned in the application.

On due consideration, application is allowed and delay in filing the review petition is hereby condoned. Heard on admission.

1. The present review petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the order dated 18-08-2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1438/2015 whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was in possession of arms licence. Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri vide its letter dated 14-01-2013 informed the District Magistrate, Shivpuri that petitioner and one Balram Yadav resident of village Bamara Tahsil Porsa District Shivpuri shared some land dispute and due to that dispute, petitioner along with other persons allegedly assaulted Balram Yadav by lathi resulting in registration of FIR vide Crime No.288/2012 at Police Station Pohri. Since petitioner is having arms licence of double barrel 12 bore gun, therefore, apprehension was raised by Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri regarding misuse of weapon because of existing dispute.

3. On the basis of such report, District Magistrate, Shivpuri issued a show cause notice to the petitioner which was replied by the petitioner vide rely dated 24-04-2013. It was the submission that false case got registered against the petitioner and other co-accused at the instance of Balram Yadav. Petitioner never misused his weapon.

4. After considering the submission and material available on record, District Magistrate, Shivpuri cancelled the arms licence of petitioner vide order dated 17-09-2013 and this gave occasion to petitioner to file appeal before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division but the appeal preferred by the petitioner also resulted into dismissal and vide order dated 29-08-2014 appeal got dismissed.

5. Therefore, petitioner preferred the petition before this Court and submitted that merely on the basis of apprehension, arms licence of petitioner cannot be cancelled. False report got registered at the instance of Balram Yadav. He is innocent and for his safety he requires arms licence.

6. After considering the rival submissions and looking to the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Arms Act, this Court dismissed the writ petition.

7. In review petition, it is the grievance of petitioner that he could not refer the fact that dispute exited between the petitioner and Balram Yadav resulted into settlement of the case and he referred the order dated 01-10-2016 by which matter has been settled between present petitioner (along with other co-accused) as well as Balram Yadav. Therefore, case was settled and accused of the case were acquitted on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel further referred the order dated 24-06-2014 passed by District Magistrate, Shivpuri in which Balram Yadav was externed from the District Shivpuri under Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990.

8. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, these facts could not be brought before the Court, therefore, in the interest of justice, documents and facts have been brought on record. It is further submitted that since solitary disputed existed between the parties and on the basis of said dispute, arms licence of petitioner has been revoked which is arbitrary and illegal.

9. Learned counsel also referred the order dated 29-08-2014 passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division in appellate order wherein although appeal of petitioner has been dismissed but direction has been given to District Magistrate, Shivpuri that he is at liberty to take appropriate decision for maintaining peace and tranquility of the village where petitioner and complainant Balram Yadav reside. Therefore, said observation be considered by this Court an