Indrapal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 1662 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

								Reserved on 18.4.2012
 
								Delivered on 14.5.4012
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1961 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Indrapal Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Raj Kumar Mishra,Rajendra Kumar Singh
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri A.K. Mishra holding brief of Sri Rajendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The present writ petition has arisen out of order passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah dated 22.1.2010 whereby the firearm of the petitioner has been cancelled.

The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order passed by the District Magistrate, Etawah which was also rejected by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur vide order dated 29.11.2010. A show cause notice under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act') has been served upon the petitioner on 19.9.2008 on the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police dated 2.9.2008. It was brought on record by the report dated 2.9.2008 that the petitioner is a person of criminal tendency and is in habit of handing over his firearm to criminals on one or other occasion. It was further recorded that the firearm of the petitioner was recovered on 22.1.2008 at Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah from one Vinod Kumar Bhadauria, resident of 166 Karanganj who was arrested and against whom a Case Crime No.24 of 2008 under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act is registered.

The petitioner's firearm licence has been suspended and he was asked to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled.

A reply was submitted by the petitioner wherein it was stated that on 22.1.2008 he alongwith his friend went to Vaibhav Vatika which is owned by Vinod Kumar Bhadauria for the purpose of booking the same for marriage. In the meantime, 4-5 persons with firearms came and started abusing Vinod Kumar Bhadauria and also fired from their firearms. At that time, Vinod Kumar Bhadauria was bare hands. During course of the incident, the police reached on the spot and arrested Vinod Kumar Bhadauria and sealed the firearm i.e. rifle of the petitioner and a case under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act has been falsely registered.

The petitioner further submitted that he got his rifle released from the competent court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further informs that Vinod Kumar Bhadauria arrested by the police from whose possession the firearm of the petitioner was recovered, has been acquitted in the criminal case lodged against him.

The order of acquittal is not on record. The petitioner further drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 4.4.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah for release of firearm of the petitioner on the basis of the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Vinod Kumar Bhadauria was falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 24 of 2008 after showing recovery of rifle of the petitioner in his possession by the police.

Repelling the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no dispute that a firearm of the petitioner was recovered from the possession of another person, namely, Vinod Kumar Bhadauria and a case has been registered against Vinod Kumar Bhadauria under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner has clearly violated the terms and conditions of the Arms Act and as such the order of the District Magistrate calls for no interference.

Reference may be made to sub Sections(1) to (5) of Section 17 of the Act which are reproduced as under:-

"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 have 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 his 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 the 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 it;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), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor 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"

Section 17(3)(d) of the Act is relevant which gives power to the licensing authority to suspend or revoke the licence, if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened.

The administrative authorities are duty bound to take appropriate action in the matter of grant of licence and also its cancellation for the purpose of maintaining peace and harmony in the society. The assessment of the administrative authorities with regard to grant of licence or cancellation of licence already granted should not be interfered ordinarily by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction, unless the same is so illegal or arbitrary as to prick the conscience of the Court.

Explanation submitted by the petitioner was considered and disbelieved by the District Magistrate, Etawah. In its order dated 22.1.2010 the District Magistrate, Etawah has recorded a finding that during course of investigation Vinod Kumar Bhadauria changed his statement from time to time and finally stated that the rifle found from his possession belongs to the petitioner. When enquired from the record, it was found that the firearm recovered from the possession of Vinod Kumar Bhadauria is in the name of the petitioner. The District Magistrate concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to retain the firearm with a view to maintain public peace and tranquility for the reason that he intentionally gave his firearm to another person who indulged in unlawful activity.

In the present case, considering the conduct of the petitioner and the fact that firearm i.e. rifle of the petitioner has been recovered from possession of an authorised person which itself is a clear case of violation of terms and conditions of grant of arms licence, the assessment of the administrative authorities should be given proper weightage and the order of the District Magistrate, Etawah and the Commissioner, Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur cannot be faulted.

In view of above, the orders impugned do not call for any interference by this Court.

The writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 14.5.2012

P.P.