Allahabad High Court
Dhirendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 9 September, 2014
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(AFR)
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 57674 of 2010
Petitioner :- Dhirendra Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioner's firearm licence has been cancelled by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur vide order dated 29.05.2009 on the ground that a criminal case No. 29 of 2008 under sections 504, 506 IPC has been registered against petitioner and the same is still pending. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad which was dismissed vide order dated 26.08.2010.
3. It is contended that in his reply, petitioner has specifically stated that he did not abuse Gram Pradhan and never misused his firearm. The complaint made by Gram Pradhan against the petitioner is on account of election dispute, and is totally false and frivolous. It is also contended that mere registration of a criminal case cannot be a ground to cancel firearm license under section 17(3) of Arms Act, 1959 (herein after referred to as "Act 1959) which reads as under:
"(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 conditions, in which a firearm licence already granted, can be cancelled, therefore, as provided under Section 17(3) of Act, 1959, can be summarized as under:-
(a) If licence holder is prohibited by Act, 1959 or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring or having possession or carrying of firearm licence or ammunitions;
(b) If the licence holder is of unsound mind;
(c) If there is any reason to hold a person unfit for licence under Act, 1959;
(d) If licensing authority finds it necessary for security of public peace or public safety;
(e) If the licence was obtained by suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information;
(f) If any condition of licence has been contravened;
(g) If the licence holder has failed to comply with a notice under Sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver up the licence.
5.All other conditions are quite specific but two conditions give much wider scope to licensing authority for cancellation of firearm. The first one is, any reason holding the licence holder "unfit" and the other one is that the licensing authority has found it necessary for "security of public peace" and "public safety".
6.In the present case, it has not been contended by learned Standing Counsel that mere registration of a criminal case or pendency of trial by itself would render a person unfit to hold licence under Act 1959. He, however, has tried to justify impugned order on the ground that it should be treated to be within the ambit of "security of public peace" or "public safety".
7.I find force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the licensing authority, if intended to exercise power of cancellation of firearm licence, finding it expedient for security of public peace or public safety, he would have said so, by giving reasons which is not the case here. The only reason given by licensing authority is that a criminal case under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. is pending, therefore, it was necessary to cancel his licence for security of public peace and public safety.
8. Pendency of criminal case does not mean that the incumbent is guilty of offence(s). The allegation/charge is still under investigation or trial. Unless specific finding is recorded that licence holder is such a person that if allowed to continue with firearm licence, it may likely to cause apprehension of breach of security of public peace or public safety, the mere factum of pendency of a criminal case cannot be a justification for cancellation of firearm licence under Sub-section 3(b) of Section 17 of Act, 1959. Once licence has been granted after being satisfied that applicant justifies grounds to possess licence, power of cancellation should be exercised sparingly and in an objective manner with appropriate application of mind, and, not mechanically on every drop of the hat and that too, without showing any relation or consequence etc. so as to connect such allegations with the issue of security of public peace or public safety. Mere use of these words would not satisfy the requirement of law.
9. The mechanical way, in which the licensing authorities these days use the language of statute, so as to pretend as if they have fulfilled requirement of law, without experiencing responsibility of giving appropriate and relevant reason, cannot protect an otherwise illegal approach. Such attitude of licensing authority in proceeding to cancel firearm licence in a mechanical way cannot be appreciated. It has to be condemned in strongest words and must be deprecated. This kind of attitude not only causes unwarranted harassment to public at large, in general, and licence holder in particular, but also increases avoidable litigation, causing unnecessary burden upon the Courts which are already overburdened. A careful objective application of mind can protect everyone from such consequence.
10. In the present case, I do not find that the ground(s) justifying cancellation of firearm licence has/have been made out by authorities concerned while passing orders impugned in this writ petition.
11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 29.05.2009 passed by District Magistrate, Fatehpur and 26.08.2010 passed by Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad are hereby quashed.
Order Date :- 09.09.2014
Aks/Akn/shailesh
