* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 5th October, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 7360/2011
% DHARAMBIR KHATTAR .......Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Prashant Singh, Adv.
Versus
GNCTD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the order dated 20th July, 2011 of the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 18 of The Arms Act, 1959 against the order dated 14th February, 2011of the Licencing Authority rejecting the request of the petitioner for renewal of arms licence.
2. The petitioner claims that arms licence having all India validity was issued to him in the year 1974 and was renewed from time to time upto 17th November, 2003.
W.P.(C) No.7360/2011 Page 1 of 9
3. The Licencing Authority (Additional Commissioner of Police) vide order dated 14th February, 2011, after issuance of show cause notice and considering the reply of the petitioner, cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner for the reasons of the petitioner, i) being involved in four criminal cases; ii) having concealed the factum of his involvement in these cases by not informing the Licencing Authority immediately after involvement and having so mislead the Licencing Authority; and, iii) giving his wrong address. The Licencing Authority thus concluded that the petitioner is not a fit person to hold an arms licence and issuance /renewal of arms licence to/of the petitioner is not in the interest of public safety at large.
4. The Lieutenant Governor, in the order impugned in this petition has observed that the petitioner has not shown due diligence and sincerity in informing the authorities of the relevant facts at the relevant time and has held that such concealment of material facts makes him unfit to hold an Arms Licence.
5. The orders of the Licencing Authority and the Appellate Authority being detailed orders giving reasons and having been made in compliance of W.P.(C) No.7360/2011 Page 2 of 9 the principles of natural justice and it being not disputed that the petitioner is an accused in a DDA scam case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and being of the view that this Court in exercise of power of judicial review is not to sit in appeal over the perception of the Licencing Authority and the Appellate Authority of petitioner being not a fit person to possess an arm albeit under licence, it was at the outset enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to what is the right of the petitioner which has been infringed.
6. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not been accused in any offence relating to arms; that the reasons given in the orders impugned have no nexus to public safety or public peace; that the grounds for cancellation do not constitute a ground under Section 17 of the Act; that the orders are in contravention of Chattar Mohan Singh Vs. Additional District Magistrate AIR 1991 Allahabad 111 laying down that in the absence of an allegation of misuse of weapon and without recording any finding of danger to public peace, cancellation cannot be effected. Reliance is also placed on:
W.P.(C) No.7360/2011 Page 3 of 9
A. Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1986 Allahabad 142 (FB) but which only lays down that the Licensing Authority under the Arms Act has no power to suspend arms licence without holding inquiry and is thus of no application in the present situation;
B. Judgment dated 5th July, 2010 of a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Writ -C No.48839/2005 titled Indrapal Singh v. State of U.P. holding that a firearm licence cannot be cancelled on the ground of mere involvement of licencee in a criminal case;
C. Mahendra Singh Bhaduria v. State of M.P. 2009(2) Recent Criminal Reports 799 where a Division Bench held that arms licence cannot be suspended for the reason of the licencee being an accused of a petty crime, not of serious nature and when he is not a hardened criminal;
D. Judgment dated 7th December, 2004 of a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Hausala Prasad Tiwari v. State of W.P.(C) No.7360/2011 Page 4 of 9 U.P. MANU/UP/1783/2004 again laying down that for mere involvement in a criminal case not affecting public security or public interest the arms licence cannot be revoked; E. Jageshwar v. State of U.P. MANU/UP/1828/2009 also laying down that the arms licence cannot be suspended/cancelled for mere involvement in a criminal case or mere likelihood of misuse of firearm;
F. Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. District Magistrate, Almora AIR 1993 Allahabad 291 but which is found to have been expressly overruled in Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. 1996 Criminal Law Journal 665 (FB);
G. A.C. Dhawan Gun House v. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/0791/2009 where an order of cancellation of arms licence on the ground of the licencee being an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was quashed. I may however note that the facts in the said case were peculiar. There, for a period of two years after issuing a notice to show W.P.(C) No.7360/2011 Page 5 of 9 cause for suspension of the arm licence, no action was taken. It was for this reason that this Court held that the said delay alone showed that there was no urgency or imminent threat to public order. Rather the relief of quashing of the cancellation order was granted for the reason of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice;
H. Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. AIR 1985 Allahabad 291 (FB).
However the said judgment is not found to be of any assistance to the petitioner. Rather it lays down that a licence for acquisition and possession of fire arms is materially different from a licence for manufacture, sale etc; while the latter confers a right to carry on a trade or business and is a source of earning livelihood, the former is merely a personal privilege for doing something which without such privilege would be unlawful. The Full Bench rather held that the grant of an arms licence being a privilege, the decision to grant or not to grant does not involve the adjudication of the right and does not W.P.(C) No.7360/2011 Page 6 of 9 entail any civil consequences and even the principles of natural justice are not to be complied at that stage.
7. I am afraid, none of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner answer the query raised. I may, notice that recently a Division Bench of this Court in People for Animals Vs. UOI 180 (2011) DLT 460 has also held that grant of a licence for acquisition and possession of firearms was only statutory privilege and not matter of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; such a licence is materially different from a licence for manufacture, sale etc. and while latter confers a right to carry on a trade or business and is a source of earning livelihood, the former is merely a personal privilege for doing something which without such privilege is unlawful; grant of such a privilege does not involve the adjudication of the right of individual nor does it entail civil consequences save that rejection of an application for grant of licence or cancellation of a licence may become legally vulnerable if arbitrary or capricious or without application of mind; it was further held that no citizen has a blanket right to carry firearms and the W.P.(C) No.7360/2011 Page 7 of 9 application for firearms may be made mostly with the object of protecting the person or property but which too is mainly the function of the State.
8. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Devendra Tukaram Katke v. The State Of Maharashtra MANU/MH/0271/2009 has held that once the concerned authority has for reasons recorded and for ensuring security of public peace and public safety cancelled the arms licence, the same ought not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction since it raises disputed questions of fact.
9. Our society has recently witnessed scenes/situations hitherto unknown. There have been instances where people, owing to the tensions of city life, have at the slightest provocation and in a fit of rage misused firearms. There have been cases where firearms have been used to kill, it appears for the sheer joy, without even any reason or provocation. The assessment made by the authorities in whom the power is vested to assess whether a person is a suitable person to hold a firearm or not and whether allowing a person to continue holding a firearm is fraught with danger cannot be lightly interfered with. As aforesaid the petitioner has no right to W.P.(C) No.7360/2011 Page 8 of 9 possess a firearm. Though the petitioner has enjoyed the privilege for over two decades but the recent developments qua the petitioner viz of being an accused in a scam and hiding the same from the licensing authorities do certainly constitute a cause for the licencing authorities to revoke such licence.
10. No case for interference with the action of the licencing authorities is thus made out. There is no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) OCTOBER 5 , 2011 'gsr'/pp (corrected and released on 24th February, 2012) W.P.(C) No.7360/2011 Page 9 of 9