Liyaqat Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1572 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30390 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Liyaqat Khan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manzar Ali Khan,Akbar Ali Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

By means of the present writ petition, the orders passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow dated 01.12.2021, and respondent no.3 i.e. District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri dated 18.02.2021 have been challenged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the Arm License No.655/D.M. Kheri, S.B.B.L. of Gun No.1612 was issued in favour of the petitioner on 23rd May, 1997 and it was kept on renewing for time to time and it was valid upto 31.12.2020 and, thereafter, petitioner applied for its renewal before the Licensing Authority. He submits that, in fact, a complaint was filed bearing the fact that an FIR was lodged as Case Crime No.408 of 2018, under Sections 147, 352, 353, 504 and 506 IPC, registered at Police Station-Kheri, District-Lakhimpur Kheri. On the aforesaid complaint, the Licensing Authority registered a case bearing No.01178 of 2020 (State Vs. Liyaqat Khan), under Section 17(3) of Arms Act, 1959. After the aforesaid case was registered, the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri submits its report, wherein, the fact with regard to the pendency of a Case Crime No.408 of 2018 was mentioned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, there is only one case registered against him and further, there is no any complaint by any of the person with regard to using the aforesaid arm which would have created a breach of the public tranquility or public peace. He further added that, in fact, the Superintendent of Police has also mentioned the fact that the aforesaid arm was never used unlawfully. The only fact which came is that he is of irritative nature.

As per his contention, being irritative of a arms license holder is not a ground for cancellation of arm license and further that too without any reason or any report.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a case reported in [2020 (3) JIC 182 (All)] (Pankaj Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others) and has referred paras 7, 9 and 10, which are extracted as under:-

7. A reading of the two orders leaves a lurking impression that on account of some issue or dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and the S.H.O. and the S.D.M. on the other at the relevant time over the construction of a drain on the petitioner's private land or that he considers to be his private property, some ego issues have led to these cancellation proceedings. But again, this Court does not consider it appropriate to pronounce upon those issues with any finality. What is important is that for the mere registration of criminal cases and in the background of a dispute as the Court has indicated hereinabove to be somewhat personal to the incumbents, peeping behind their official action, the petitioner's fire arm licence ought not to be cancelled; a more objective look ought to have been taken at the record by the Authorities before cancelling the petitioner's license. The mere fact that criminal cases are pending, is no ground to cancel a fire arm license. That is a proposition of law far to well settled to require elucidation. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Surya Narain Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others1 where after review of a wealth of authority on the point, answering the precise question that is involved in this case and on facts almost similar, it was held thus:

"5. Thus, the trivial question involved in this writ petition is as to whether licensing authority is vested with the power under the Arms Act to revoke/cancel the license of a public person mere on involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case.

...........

7. The aforesaid view has been reiterated in Hridaya Narain Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others2, Rama Kushwaha vs. State of U.P. & others,3 Hiramani Singh vs. State of U.P. & others4, and Rajendra Singh vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and others5, wherein it has been propounded that involvement in criminal case or pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation/revocation of firearm license.

8. In the case of Jageshwar Vs. State of U.P. and others6, it has been held that mere involvement in criminal case cannot in any way affect the public Security or public interest.

...............

12. As averred above, in the case at hand, the District Magistrate, has not recorded any finding that it was necessary to cancel the licence for the security of public peace or for public safety. All that he has done is, have referred to some applications and reports lodged against the petitioner. The mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis of cancelling the licence. The order passed by the District Magistrate and that passed by the Commissioner cannot, therefore, be upheld on the basis of anything contained in Section 17(3) of the Act."

9. In view of what has been said above, the impugned orders passed by the Authorities below are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed with a remit of the matter to the District Magistrate, Basti to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, including consideration of the petitioner's prayer for the renewal of his fire arm license, in the event, the District Magistrate does not find good ground to again come to the same conclusion.

10. The District Magistrate is ordered to take a decision in the matter within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after hearing the petitioner and in accordance with law, bearing in mind what has been said in the body of this judgment.

Indicating the aforesaid paras, he submits that mere pendency of a criminal case would not create any ground for cancellation of a fire-arm license. He has further placed reliance on a case reported in [2015 (33) LCD 1000] (Dharam Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) and has referred paras 7, 8 and 9, wherein, the same ratio has been reiterated.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the contention aforesaid and submits that there is an FIR registered against the petitioner and further there is a report of the Superintendent of Police, Kheri, which goes against the petitioner. He further added that since the petitioner is of irritative nature and, as such, this cannot be denied that he can use the arm unscrupulously.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of records, I find that Licensing Authority has cancelled the arm license of the present petitioner on the premises that a criminal case has been registered and pending against the petitioner. Further, the report of the Superintendent of Police has also been ignored, though, the same slightly supports the version of the present petitioner.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the orders passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow dated 01.12.2021, and respondent no.3 i.e. District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri dated 18.02.2021 are hereby quashed.

The Licensing Authority/District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment and orders mentioned above within a period of 60 days from the date of certified copy of this order produced before him.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, writ petition is finally disposed off.

Order Date :- 27.4.2022

Ashutosh