Zulfikar Ali vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 6765 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5476 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Zulfikar Ali
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Firearm licence of petitioner was cancelled by means of impugned order dated 13.01.2022 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Ghaziabad on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case wherein after investigation charge sheet was filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 448, 506, 120B, 324, 325 IPC. Licensing Authority has taken note of allegations made in FIR and recorded subjective satisfaction that it was necessary for security of public peace or for public safety to cancel firearm licence of petitioner. Petitioner's appeal filed against aforesaid order was also rejected vide order dated 11.11.2022 passed by Commissioner, Meerut Zone, Meerut.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no allegation even in charge sheet filed against petitioner that there was misuse of licensed arm. FIR was falsely lodged against petitioner. He placed reliance on a Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Satish Singh vs. District Magistrate, Sultanpur and others, 2009(4) ADJ 33 that merely on the ground of involvement in a criminal case firearm licence cannot be cancelled as it will not amount to breach of public peace or public safety.

3. Above submissions are opposed by learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents. He submits that petitioner was involved in aforesaid criminal case wherein charge sheet has been filed and charges are framed, therefore, there is more than prima facie case against petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Recently, this Court in Mahipal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No.1080 of 2023), decided on 14.02.2023 has an occasion to consider the similar submissions wherein it has referred to its earlier judgment in Indrajeet Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2021(10) ADJ 471, wherein it has been held that:

"16. The words "public peace and public order" are normally considered to maintain peace and order at public at large. However, there may be instances where though the immediate danger may be to an individual, but it may have threat to the public at large. For example a fire arm licensee entered inside the house of a neighbour and threatened him or undertook blank firing by licensed weapon or otherwise, though it may be itself be violative or not violative of conditions fire arm license, but this act is not only a threat to an individual, but is definitely likely to cause disturbance of public peace and public order to public at large, therefore, in these circumstances for security of public peace or for public order, the licensing authority may suspend or revoke the arms licence under Section 17 (3) of the Act, of 1959. Similarly, a person/licensee who is involved in a case of murder or attempt to murder or any offence affecting human body or any other serious offence, there may be likelihood of breach of public peace or public order.

17. The words used in Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act, 1959 is "deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety" i.e. in order to secure public peace or for public safety, the licensing authority if deems necessary, may suspend or revoke the licence. It is not necessary that actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may take place to revoke or suspend the arms licence. The licensing authority on the basis of material available, if deems necessary for security of public peace or for public safety may revoke the arms licence. Therefore, at this stage subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority comes into picture and if the licensing authority finds that due to certain act whether it is affecting to an individual or public at large, may for the security of public peace or for public safety, may suspend or revoke the arms licence. This is a precautionary measure, therefore, it is not necessary that actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may occur. Therefore, even the criminal antecedent of the licensee are very important factor for consideration for granting license. In these circumstances, even pendency of a criminal case involving serious offence may be sufficient to suspend or revoke the arms licence. Similarly, even after the acquittal, the nature of acquittal may be an important factor to consider whether there may be a likelihood of disturbance of public peace and safety especially in cases where the offences are against the State, offence against public tranquillity, offences affecting human body, offences affecting life, and sexual offences etc.

18. The licensing authority is in the field, therefore, is the best judge who can assess the situation on the basis of material which are before him. Such an assessment cannot be substituted by this Court which is no way connected or does not have any inkling of situations. This Court cannot undertake any exercise to determine the facts leading to the subjective satisfaction of the licencing authority on the basis of situation then existing, except there are material to show as to how the satisfaction is perverse or based on no material. (See Jagat Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1997 (34) ACC 499).

19. There must be subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority that the licensee is not fit to continue holding of licence. If the licensing authority is satisfied of the fact that a continued existence of fire arms licence with a person charged with various offence may endanger security of public peace and public safety then revocation of licence under Section 17 cannot be said to arbitrary or without jurisdiction. (See, 1999 SCC Online Pat 206, (1999) 3 PLJR 203, Tej Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others)."

6. It is well settled that firearm license is a privilege and it does not fall in the category of Constitutional or Fundamental Right as held by Full Bench of this Court in Kailash Nath vs. State, 1985 AWC 493 (FB).

7. Firearm licence can be issued to a person who has good reputation and it is his responsibility that he will not indulge in any activity which may give a slightest apprehension that keeping of firearm licence will be detrimental for security of public peace or for public safety.

8. However, in the present case petitioner was involved alongwith other persons in a case where they assaulted some persons in open field and injured were suffered grievous injuries. In investigation offence was found to be prima facie proved and since charge sheet has been filed and charges are framed, therefore, there is more than prima facie case against petitioner.

9. Appellate Authority while considering appeal of petitioner has taken note of facts of case and found that there is no error in the subjective satisfaction of Licensing Authority.

10. Facts of the case relied on by learned counsel for petitioner in Satish Singh (supra) are also different as Coordinate Bench has taken note of contents of FIR of case concerned and that it was a case of accidental firing death. However, in the present case not only facts are different but more than prima facie case found against petitioner that he was involved in a criminal case which creates apprehension that in case firearm licence is continued with petitioner, it will be detrimental for security of public peace or for public safety.

11. The outcome of above discussion is that there is no irregularity or illegality in orders impugned in this writ petition.

12. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed accordingly.

Order Date :-02.03.2023

AK