Chhatrapal Singh vs Commissioner Chitrakoot Dham & ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 4920 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Reserved.
 
Court No. - 35
 

 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43004 of 2005
 

 
Petitioner :- Chhatrapal Singh
 
Respondent :- Commissioner Chitrakoot Dham & Ors.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ram Kishor Gupta
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sunil Hali,J.

By means of this writ petition petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.5.2005 and 27.8.2002 passed by the respondent nos. 1 & 2.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a licensee of rifle No. 10946/3C vide Licence No. 00419 which was granted to the petitioner after due enquiry. On 11.1.2002 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his licence may not be cancelled on the ground of his involvement in Case Crime No. 381 of 2001, under Section 302/34 IPC registered against him. Against the said order petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 3355 of 2002 and the said writ petition came up for disposal before this Court on 23.1.2002, which stood disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to file his explanation before the licensing authority within three week and the licensing authority was directed to conclude the enquiry expeditiously. It appears from the impugned order dated 27.8.2002 that the Petitioner did not appear before the licensing authority and the matter was considered ex parte. The licensing authority recorded his satisfaction that from the act and behaviour of the petitioner it is not in the interest of security of public to permit the arm license to remain with such a person and cancelled the arm licence of the petitioner vide order dated 27.8.2002. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority under Section 18 of the Act and the said order was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 19.5.2005. This order is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents have not recorded any finding that it was necessary to cancel the licence for security of public peace or public safety and mere involvement of the petitioner in aforesaid criminal case could not form basis for cancelling the licence. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Shiv Prasad Mishra Vs. State of UP reported in A.W.C. 1978, page 122, wherein it has been held by this Court that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot in any way effect the public security and public interest.

Learned standing counsel refuting the submissions of counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Magistrate in the present case was fully justified in cancelling the petitioner's license on being satisfied that the grounds exist for suspension within the meaning of Section 17(3) of the Act.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

The question, which is required to be considered is whether the licence given to the petitioner under section 13 of the Act is liable to be cancelled. Section 17 of the Act provides the power for suspension or revocation of the licence by an order in writing. Sub-section 3 of Section 17 provides that the licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence. For better appreciation Section 17 of the Act is quoted below:-

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 having 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 period 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 the 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 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, or

(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened, or

(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under Sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver up the licence.

(4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof.

(5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under Sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under Sub-section (3), shall record in writing the reasons therefore and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.

(6) The authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate may by order in writing, suspend or revoke a licence on any ground on which, it may be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority; and the foregoing provisions of this section shall as far as may be, apply in relation to the suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority.

(7) A Court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the Rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence:

Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void.

(8) All orders of suspension or revocation under Sub-section (7) may also be made by an appellate Court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision.

(9) The Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any licences granted under this Act throughout India or any part thereof.

(10) On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation.

Bare perusal of the aforesaid Section, it clearly emerges that the suspension of an arm licence and revocation of arm licence are two different concepts and have different consequences. The grounds for suspension of a licence or revocation of licence are same. The grounds for suspension and revocation although being same but it is left to the discretion of the licensing authority to decide either to suspend or to revoke the licence in facts of the particular case. In the present case the grounds for suspension are within purview of Section 17(3)(b). Licensing authority has cancelled the license of the petitioner after taking into consideration its effect on public peace and public safety in the area. Therefore, it is the objective satisfaction based upon the material on record that the continued existence of fire arms licence with the petitioner would endanger security of the public peace or the public safety which is required to be judged by the licensing authority. It is no doubt true that the licensing authority is given the power under section 17(3) to revoke or suspend a licence. That does not mean that the licensing authority has no jurisdiction to suspend or revoke the licence once granted. The power to grant would include to suspend or cancel even if there is no stipulation in the Act. Therefore, the authority is well within its competence to pass appropriate order.

Question whether such reasons are right or not, is not for the court to consider, unless reasons are perverse or the exercise of power is mala fide. The Arms Act does not confer a privilege on the person to whom the licence is granted. Perusal of the impugned orders shows that the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority have passed orders giving reasons and have recorded satisfaction that permitting the arm licence to remain with the petitioner is against the public peace and security and safety of the people. Allegation against the petitioner was that on 27.11.2001 he along with his associates killed the brother of the complainant. Such conduct of a person will amount to endanger the public safety and public peace. Thus, I am satisfied that there was material before the licensing authority and on the said material the licensing authority has recorded its satisfaction for cancellation of arm licence. The order cancelling the licence and its confirmation in appeal thus cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified.

The second argument of the petitioner's counsel that mere involvement in the criminal case is not sufficient for cancellation of arm licence. Instant case is not a case of passing of cancellation order merely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. The incident which took place on 27.11.2001 has been taken into consideration and it is the happening on that particular day which has formed the basis of cancellation of arm licence. It may be true that commission of offence is not the only situation which justifies cancellation of licence. Prevention is part of Criminal law, and action need not await commissioning or non commissioning of offences. Preventive and punitive actions are justified in order to prevent a mischief. Legal niceties, dehors living realities, cannot do honour to the rule of law. If there are good grounds for cancellation of licence, cancellation would be justified. It is not the gift of administrative authorities to see the future with a degree of precision, or to see the visage of things to come. An element of subjective opinion is inevitable in these regions. If the authority forms an opinion on reasonable premises and objectively, the opinion cannot be assailed, only because it lacks the quality of prediction. The material before the District Magistrate which he found acceptable, furnished justification for preventive action.

However, as a caution, it will not be out of place to mention here that in the matter of licensing firearms and regulating possession of guns, State must evolve a proper and realistic policy. Liberal issue of licences for firearms could create a dangerous situation posing even security risks. Firearms can often imperil protection, than ensuring it. Arms in large quantities and those possessing it can pose serious threats to individuals and also to the State. These are matters for the appropriate authority to consider, while formulating a realistic policy, not only regarding licensing of fire arms, but also in evolving an effective programme to contain the growth and spread of dangerous weapons. The right to possess a gun is subject to restrictions in the Act in the interest of public order and safety, as is the intention of the Arms Act.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed, however, without imposing any costs.

 
Dated: 29.09.2011
 
RKS/							         (Justice Sunil Hali)