Allahabad High Court
Pawan Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief ... on 25 April, 2022
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16760 of 2021
Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Home Lko.And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
2. Instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 25.06.2021 passed by opposite party no.2 and the order dated 06.05.2016 passed by opposite party no.3.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in fact the respondent no.2 has passed the aforesaid order without considering the fact that there was no any danger to the public peace and safety. He further added that in fact ground which was taken by the petitioner in the appeal was also not considered. He submits that in fact from perusal of the order passed by the District Magistrate, it is evident that he has taken cognizance to the fact that three cases bearing Case Crime Nos. 83 of 1999, 372A of 2002 and 61 of 2008 are pending wherein charge sheet have been filed. He submits that there is perversity in the finding of the District Magistrate as Case Crime Nos. 83 of 1999 and 372A of 2002 wherein final report has been submitted by the investigating officer. He further added that purport of Section 17(3) of Arms Act is to the effect that there must be actual danger of public safety and as such authority while taking decision is under obligation to discuss that what was the danger to the public safety and public interest. But from perusal of it is evident that same has not been discussed in the order dated 6th May, 2016. He further added that in fact there was an enmity with the police authority wherein a complaint case was filed against the police of the concerned police station, who have later on submitted a report in the aforesaid matter, while falsely showing the some incident inside of the police station, though the same never happened. He also added that in appeal, he has filed written submission before the appellate authority and without taking into consideration of the aforesaid written submission, appellate order was passed. He also added that the petitioner before the appellate authority has raised the issue with regard to the malafide as well as the perversity of the order passed by the District Magistrate but those were ignored by the appellate authority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance of the case of Ram Prasad vs Commissioner, Moradabad, Division Moradabad and other reported in 2020(2) JIC 316 (All) and in Misc. Single No. 7744 of 2011 Krishna Kumar Mali vs State of U.P. and others).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently countered the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the District Magistrate while passing the order has very well discussed the issue and passed the cancellation order of arms of petitioner and has also drawn attention towards police report at page 56 wherein there was a chargesheet which is indicative that petitioner is terrorised inside the police station having lathi and danda and arms in his hand. He further added that the District Magistrate has taken cognizance while passing the order as finding clause is evident that he has mentioned the relevant Section 17(3)(b) of Arms Act which clearly provides ground of cancellation of licence where there is threat to the public peace and safety. He submits that there is danger to the public interest and safety and as such the District Magistrate as well as appellate authority rightly passed the order and there is no such illegality and infirmity in the impugned orders.
6. Learned counsel for the State has also placed reliance on the judgment report in 2020(38) LCD 1743 (Anoop Rana @ Sattan v. State of U.P. and others) and referred para 19 and 20 which are extracted as follows:-
"19. Thus, in exercise of writ jurisdiction a finding of fact recorded by the final court of fact or the statutory authority should not ordinarily be interfered with by the High Court unless the court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is patently perverse. The role of the Court is supervisory and corrective. The High Court is not expected to interfere with the final order passed by the statutory authority unless the order suffers from manifest error of law and if it is allowed to stand it would amount to perpetuation of grave injustice. It should also not interfere with the finding of fact simply because on the material on record a different view is also possible. This Court would not act as yet another court of appeal in the matter.
20. The finding recorded by the statutory authority in the present case being based on material on record and also having been recorded after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in consonance with the principle of natural justice, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact that the continued existence of fire arm license with the petitioner would endanger security of public peace and public safety. Once there is material to support the finding, this Court will also not enter into the aspect of sufficiency of the material for the satisfaction of the licensing authority. "
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, I find that order passed by the District Magistrate is perverse as in the finding clause it is evident that the District Magistrate has mentioned that charge sheets were filed in all the three cases though fact remains that in two cases final report were submitted. Finding with regard to the issue of danger to the public interest and safety have also not been discussed in the required way of wordings. Further the appellate authority has also ignored the written submission placed by the petitioner.
8. So far as the case cited by the State's counsel is concerned, in that case finding on public peace and safety was recorded over there by the authority concerned but in the instant case there is no specific finding on the issue of danger to public peace and safety as such the ratio of the abovesaid judgment would not apply in the instant matter.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the District Magistrate as well as appellate order are hereby quashed.
10. The matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate to decide the matter afresh after calling objection from the concerned parties and pass a fresh order keeping in view of the purport of Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act within a period of 60 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law.
11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.4.2022
A.Kr*
