The Allahabad High Court, while upholding the cancellation of the firearms license of the petitioner reiterated that mere pendency of criminal proceedings is not a ground for cancellation of a firearm license, and will not be applicable where the licensing authority has objectively considered the facts of the case and passed an order of cancellation.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner's arm license was renewed till 2025, however, it was cancelled in 2021 by the competent authority on the recommendation of Police Station Katra Bazaar. Certain FIRs were filed under IPC, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 and Public Properties Act, 1984, where the petitioner claims to not be named which led to the cancellation of the license. The appellate authority upheld the order of cancellation of arms license which has been challenged in the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that it is a settled proposition of law that an arms license cannot be cancelled on the basis of the pendency of criminal proceedings. The counsel further placed reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 19.12.2022 passed in Writ-C No. 7078 of 2004 Inre; Ram Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P and Ors wherein the said proposition of law has been laid down.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the arms license of the petitioner has not been cancelled solely on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings against him and the name of the petitioner does not find place in any of the FIRs which have lodged. However, in the instant case, the competent authority has categorically recorded the conduct of the petitioner as finds place in the order impugned dated 26.03.2021 which has prevailed upon the authority to cancel the arms license of the petitioner upon a specific finding that continuance of the arms license with the petitioner would be detrimental to public peace and public safety.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to the impugned order and observed that it is not only the criminal cases which have been considered rather the competent authority has categorically recorded the conduct of the petitioner which has led the authority to come to the conclusion that continuance of the arms license with the petitioner would be detrimental for the security of the public peace and for public safety and hence he has cancelled the said license.
The court further referred to Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 and stated that the licensing authority has been given the power to vary the conditions subject to which a license has been granted. The licensing authority, on an application of a holder of a license can also vary the condition of the license and the licensing authority has also been given the power under Sub section (3) of Section 17 of the Act, 1959 to suspend a license for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a license, where the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the license is prohibited by the, 1959 or by any other law from acquiring or having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a license and if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the license or license has been obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the license or if any of the conditions of the license has been contravened or if the holder of the license has failed to comply with a notice requiring him to deliver up the license.
The court further stated that in an area where an order under Section 144 CrPC had been issued, the petitioner was charged with spreading rumours, standing with his firearm and hampering the traffic movement in the middle of the night. Accordingly, the conduct of the petitioner was found to be a threat to public peace and public safety which entailed the competent authority to cancel the arms license and further stated that though the person had pleaded that he was not present on the spot, he had failed to plead and prove any malafide intent on part of the authorities who levelled such charges him.
The decision of the Court:
The court concluded that since the objective satisfaction of the licensing authority was recorded in the cancellation order, the same was valid and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Gautam vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Moin
Case No.: WRIT - C No. - 1614 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Pramod Kumar Shukla, Ashish Kumar Mishra, Pradeep Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: C.S.C.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
