Mohammad Aslam vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9543 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2483 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Mohammad Aslam
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Home, Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Bahadur Singh,Anita Singh,Ashok Kumar Mishra,Santosh Kumar Upadhyay
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. This highly belated second writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the respondent no.2/ District Magistrate, Shrawasti, contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, by means of which the license of two arms out of three granted to the petitioner were cancelled.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted three arms license in the year 1994 but on account of two criminal cases lodged against the petitioner, the action was taken against the petitioner and he was compelled to surrender two arms licenses and retain one arm license by means of the order dated 31.07.2009. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner had approached this Court by means of Writ Petition Misc. Single No.948 of 2010. The Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and directed to the licensing authority to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for grant of arms license afresh, if there is no legal impediment after calling a fresh report from the police station concerned. In compliance thereof, the matter was reconsidered and by means of the order dated 30.05.2011, the two arms licenses of the petitioner were cancelled and the one arms license was released in favour of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the same was dismissed on 21.08.2019. The petitioner had approached this Court by means of Writ Petition Misc. Single No.28725 of 2019. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner. The two criminal cases have been decided in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has been acquitted by means of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2019 and 01.04.2022 respectively. Therefore the petitioner has again applied for grant of the remaining two licenses but the same has not been considered therefore the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. Submission is that since the petitioner has been exonerated in the two criminal cases pending against him, on account of which the two arms license were cancelled, therefore he is entitled for grant of the two arms licenses.

4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already challenged the order dated 30.05.2011 in Writ Petition Misc. Single No.27825 of 2019, which was dismissed without any liberty to the petitioner, therefore this second writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the writ petition was not dismissed on the ground of pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner, therefore even if the petitioner has been exonerated, that cannot be a ground for challenging the order passed by the respondent no.2, that too without challenging the order passed in appeal. The second writ petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds which is liable to be dismissed.

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records.

6. The petitioner was granted three arms licenses bearing No.495/II, DBBL No.15375-94, Pistol License No.482/II, RP 110860 and Rifle License No.98/II No.A.B 028829. The petitioner came to be involved in three criminal cases, out of which one was NCR. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.10.2009 as to why the arms licenses may not be cancelled in public interest and in view of the security of public and public peace. The petitioner submitted his reply on 01.06.2009. Considering the same, all the three arms licenses were cancelled by means of the order dated 31.07.2009. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same which was dismissed by means of the order dated 23.12.2001. The petitioner challenged the said orders in Writ Petition Misc. Single No.948 of 2010. The writ petition was allowed and the aforesaid orders were quashed by means of the order dated 25.02.2011 providing therein that the licensing authority shall consider the case of the petitioner for grant of license afresh, in case there is no legal impediment after calling a fresh report from the police station concerned. In compliance thereof, the case of the petitioner was considered afresh and the District Magistrate, Shrawasti found that there is no sufficient ground to keep three license by the petitioner and accordingly cancelled the two licenses bearing No.495/II, DBBL No.15375-94 and Pistol License No.482/II, RP 110860. However, the license of Rifle License No.98/II No.A.B 028829 was released in favour of the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner is not wanted in any other criminal case. Therefore it is apparent that the license was restricted to one arms license considering the security of the public at large and peace and the ground of pendency of the criminal cases is not a ground for cancellation of Arms licences.

7. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 30.05.2011 in appeal. The appeal was dismissed by means of the order dated 21.08.2019. Therefore the petitioner approached this Court challenging the orders dated 30.05.2011 and 21.08.2019 by filing Misc. Writ Petition No.28725 of 2019(Mohd. Aslam versus State of U.P). This Court, after considering the plea of the petitioner, recorded a finding that in fact before the licensing authority as is evident from the recital contained in the impugned order, it is evident that the petitioner has consented for retaining one arms license and thereafter after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order has been passed. This Court has further recorded that the petitioner is said to be involved in three criminal cases but that is not the reason for cancelling the arms license by the impugned order. The relevant portion of the judgment and order dated 05.03.2021, by means of which the said writ petition was dismissed is extracted herein below:

"Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel this Court is of the view that obtaining an Arms License under the Arms Act, 1959 is merely a privilege or a license and not an indefeasible or absolute right. In the present times in which we live, unnecessary mushrooming of Arms in the hands of the people, especially those involved in criminal cases, can not be justified by any canon of public safety and peace. This is not a case where the petitioner has been able to demonstrate before this Court that there is any threat to his life so as to warrant three Arms for his safety. In fact, before the Licensing Authority, as is evident from the recital contained in the impugned order, it is evident that the petitioner had consented for retaining one Arms License and thereafter considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order has been passed.

The petitioner is said to be involved in three criminal cases but that is not the reason for cancelling the Arms License by the impugned order. The relevant extract of the order impugned order reads as under:-

"???????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? 495/II ????????? ??? ?? ??? 15375-94, ????? ??????? ?????? 98/II ????? ??? ????? 028829 ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? 482/II ?????? ??? ?????? 110860 ??, ?? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ????????? ?? ???-??? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ??-??????? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? 98/II ????? ??? ????? 028829 ???? ?? ????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??, ???????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???-??? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ???????/???????? ?? ???????? ????????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???????? ? ??????????? ???? ? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? 495/II ???????????? ?? ??? 15375-94 ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? 482/II ?????? ??? ?????? 110860 ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??????????? ???? ????"

This Court is of the view that in view of the provisions contained in Section 17(3)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 a wide discretion has been vested in the Licensing Authorities by which if he is satisfied that for any reason holder of the License is unfit for the license under this Act or he deems it necessary for the security or public peace or the public safety to suspend or revoke the license he can do so by recording in writing the reasons therefor, which he has done in this case. There is absolutely no reason nor material before this Court to justify the possession of three Arms License by the petitioner. The opinion framed by the Licensing Authority does not suffer from any error. The petitioner has been allowed to retain one Arms License which is sufficient for his security.

In view of the above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed."

8. In view of above, it is apparent that neither the two arms licenses have been cancelled on the ground of pendency of the criminal cases nor this Court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground of pendency of criminal cases. Therefore even if the petitioner has subsequently been exonerated, though appears to be,by giving benefit of doubt, it cannot be a ground to challenge the order passed by the District Magistrate again before this Court, whereas this Court has not granted any liberty to the petitioner. It is also noticed that the petitioner has challenged only the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Shrawasti but the order passed on appeal has not been challenged, though it cannot be challenged again. It can also not be challenged again once the writ petition has been dismissed by this Court. Thus, this Court is of the view that this second writ petition challenging the order dated 30.05.2011 is not maintainable. Even otherwise there is no ground for interference by this Court.

9. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 3.4.2023

Akanksha