Dr. Shakib Siddiqui vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1104 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36687 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Dr. Shakib Siddiqui
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Sinha,Ajay Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

Heard Satish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. S.R.Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel.

Petitioner before this Court is aggrieved that his arms license was cancelled only on the ground that his Father was involved in number of cases.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no allegation, complaint or any criminal case pending against petitioner. All the cases which are mentioned in the impugned order are pending against his Father and in one of the case Final Report was submitted. However, he has no instructions as to whether said Final Report was accepted or not as well as in the remaining three cases trial is pending.

Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Ram Prasad Vs. Commissioner & Ors, 2020 (5) ADJ, 43 that in case of pendency of criminal cases on his Father, arms license of the petitioner being his son cannot be cancelled. He further submits that appeal of the petitioner was also wrongly rejected.

Learned Standing Counsel has contradicted the above submissions that licensing authority has come up on the basis of subjective satisfaction that in the family of petitioner i.e. his Father, there are more than one cases pending and presently the trial is underway and the offence are of serious nature.

It is well settled that grant of license is a privilege and not a right.

Arms Act and Rules framed thereunder provide specific provision that for the security of public peace and public order, any arms license can be cancelled.

It is also not in dispute that in the present case, father of the petitioner and the arms license holder i.e. his Son are living together.

It is also not in dispute that petitioner's father is facing trial in three cases, though there is an averment that in one of the case he has been acquitted, but the nature of acquittal is not on record, which is also a relevant factor as held by this Court in Indrajeet Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021(10) ADJ 471.

In the present case, in the impugned order, licensing authority has taken note of pending cases against the father of the petitioner which is a relevant factor.

Revoking the arms license or not is considered after taking note of social background of the petitioner which is an important factor as the words used are "for the security of public peace and order" thus words are in the apprehension that arms license may be used by such person who has indulged in or they were closely related with the incident.

Subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority cannot be interfered except being malafide or without any basis.

I have carefully perused the impugned order.

Licensing authority has taken note of background of petitioner and has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that it is a fit case to revoke arms license of the petitioner for security of public peace and order and said subjective satisfaction cannot be disturbed on the basis of strong suspicion as held in Indrajeet Singh (supra).

In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

Writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 11.1.2023

SB