Allahabad High Court
Tej Ram vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 July, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 64720 of 2015
Petitioner :- Tej Ram
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Daga,Anil Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The present petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner was a holder of fire arm licence of D.B.B.L. Gun being licence no.3719/P.S. Purkazi, District Muzaffar Nagar. It is alleged that an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner as Case Crime No.180 of 2011, under Sections 427, 452, 504 & 506 I.P.C. It is alleged that in the said case, after investigation, the final report was filed wherein it was concluded by the Investigating Officer that no case for prosecution is made out.
Aggrieved against the said final report a protest petition was filed that too was dismissed. A report has been filed alleging that the petitioner had allowed his son to misuse his fire arm and thus said fire arm licence is cancelled and its report was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. The District Magistrate issued a show cause notice in exercise of powers under Section 17 (3) of Arms Act on 17.06.2011 (Annexure No.4 of the writ petition). In the said show cause notice, it was alleged that a case being Case Crime No.180 of 2011 has been registered against the petitioner and a report has been submitted that there is likelihood to misuse the licence as such why action may not be taken for cancellation of the licence. The petitioner claims to file a reply to the said show cause notice alleging that the F.I.R. in question was a false F.I.R. and in any event no case for cancellation can be said to be made out.
The said objections were filed on 01.07.2011. Considering the objections, an order dated 27.07.2012 came to be passed cancelling the licence of the petitioner on the ground that the case was registered against the petitioner as Case Crime No.180 of 2011 and as the petitioner was 70 years of age, he may not be able to protect the weapon and thus on these two grounds the licence was cancelled. The petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the said order before the Commissioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act. In the appeal it was pleaded that the F.I.R. was found to be false inasmuch as a final report has been filed. He further pleaded that although it has been wrongly urged that the age of the petitioner is 70 years, whereas, the actual age of the petitioner is 65 years and petitioner was healthy and hearty and thus on the said ground cancellation was neither justified nor in consonance with the mandate of the Arms Act. The said appeal was heard and dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2014 without even considering the fact that the final report was filed and without considering the contention of the petitioner that he was healthy and hearty and not of 70 years of age.
I have perused the said orders impugned in the present petition. Both the said orders are premised on the pendency of the case registered as Case Crime No. 180 of 2011 as well as age of the petitioner, Its already recorded above that the Case Crime No.180 of 2011 after investigation resulted in final report and thus the said basis for cancellation of licence clearly is not tenable in law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, wherein the question of the age was considered. He has also filed the supplementary affidavit bringing on record the present medical condition of the petitioner issued by the Medical Officer to the effect that the petitioner is physically and mentally fit. The judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ahmed Mustafa Vs. District Magistrate has dealt with the issue of age wherein it was held that the denial of arms licence solely on the basis of age cannot be held to be a reasonable exercise of power. Even in Arms Act the age of the applicant is not available as a ground on which a licence can be cancelled. Thus, both the grounds which are the foundation of the impugned orders do not stand.
Accordingly, this petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 14.08.2014 and 27.07.2012, passed by learned Commissioner, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur in Appeal No.36 of 2012 and Learned District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar in Case No.108 of 2010-11, respectively, are set aside and the licence of the petitioner stands restored.
Order Date :- 14.7.2021
Atul
