Shri Ranbir Singh vs The Lt. Governor (Nct Of Delhi) And ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 732 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. This order will dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 2nd August, 2000 passed by the Licensing Authority whereby the gun license of the petitioner was not renewed. A few facts giving rise to the present appeal are :

2. The petitioner was issued an arms license by S.D.M., Sonepat, in the State of Haryana, in respect of a .32 bore revolver bearing No.881589. Subsequently the license was transferred to Delhi and was registered with the Licensing Authority in Delhi as per the provisions of the Arms Act and the Rules framed there under. The license has stated to have been renewed periodically by the authorities. A notice dated 19th March, 1991 was issued by the Licensing Authority to the petitioner to show cause why his license be not cancelled for his involvement in case FIR Nos.466/80 and 131/88 registered with P.S. Delhi Cantt. And P.S. Bahadur Garh respectively. The petitioner is stated to have filed reply to the show cause notice on 9th April, 1991 and after considering the reply and also taking into consideration the record, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) passed an order on 6th January, 1992 cancelling the arms license issued to the petitioner. This order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Lieutenant Governor. In appeal, the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) for starting inquiring de novo. After the remand of the case, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) started de novo inquiry into the matter and gave opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to explain his case in person. The petitioner again made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) and prayed for cancellation of the orders earlier passed by him on 6th January, 1992. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing), however, after hearing the petitioner and after taking into consideration the material before him, came to the conclusion that since two cases against the petitioner were registered in 1980 and 1988 and he was arrested during the investigation of these cases and though he has been acquitted in both the cases but as per the report of the local police, he appeared to be a notorious type of person. He also observed that the local police had also recommended the cancellation of his license. Licensing authority has also observed that the acquittal of the petitioner due to compromise and lack of evidence, did not relieve him from the liabilities of his criminal involvement. Licensing authority was, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner was not a fit person to hold arms license in the interest of public safety and peace and the license of the petitioner was, accordingly, cancelled. This order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) dated 7th January, 2000 was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Lieutenant Governor which was dismissed by order dated 2nd August, 2000. These orders have now been challenged by the petitioner by filing the present writ petition.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner had been acquitted in both the cases which were the basis of the show cause notice, there was no case made out by the respondents to cancel the arms license of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the Lieutenant Governor having rejected the appeal of the petitioner after proper appraisal of the material before him, this Court while exercising the power of judicial review would not interfere with the same and substitute its own decision in place of the decisions of the Lieutenant Governor and Licensing authority. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was guilty of suppressing material facts inasmuch as he had deliberately concealed about his involvement in the criminal cases while obtaining license from the SDM, Sonepat and to compound the same the petitioner suppressed the material fact of his arrest in criminal cases from the Licensing Authority in Delhi. It is submitted that the fact that the petitioner had concealed his involvement in the criminal cases from the Licensing Authority clearly shows his criminal tendencies and malafides of the petitioner which render him unfit to hold an arms license under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Rule 62(4) of the Arms Rules 1962 in the interest of public safety, security and peace.

4. The petitioner had applied for license with the Licensing Authority in Delhi on 27th February, 1990. On this date, two cases relating to FIR No.456/80 under Sections 147/148/149/324/308/34 IPC at PS Delhi Cantt. and FIR No.131/88 under Sections 325/34 IPC with PS Bahadur Garh, Haryana were registered against the petitioner. The petitioner had been arrested by the police and was later on released on bail. In the application while applying for the license against the column "whether he had been convicted or arrested", the petitioner had written "NO". It is thus clear that the petitioner had deliberately concealed from the Licensing authority the factum of his arrest in the aforesaid FIRs. The original record has been placed before the Court by the respondents and a perusal of the application of the petitioner for registration of the arms with the Licensing Authority, Delhi shows that against the column "whether the petitioner had been convicted or arrested", he had written "NO". This, in my view, was sufficient for the Licensing Authority to arrive at his subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was not a fit person to hold an arms license under the provisions of the Arms Act. Not only that the petitioner had deliberately concealed this fact of his having been arrested from the licensing authority in the aforesaid two FIRs, even when the Court had asked the petitioner in Court as to whether he had disclosed the fact of his having been arrested to the licensing authority at the time of applying for license, it was submitted by the petitioner that there being no column in the application form for the licensee to disclose about his arrest to the licensing authority, he had not mentioned about the same. It was on this submission being made that this Court had directed the respondents to produce the original record/file and on perusal of the file when it was noticed that there was a specific column for the applicant to mention in his application for license as to whether he had been arrested earlier, the petitioner was not able to give any satisfactory reply. Moreover, merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case would not mean that he becomes entitled to renewal of the license. I am in agreement with the Licensing Authority that acquittal on the basis of compromise or for lack of evidence does not relieve a person from the liabilities of his criminal involvement.

5. In this view of the matter, this Court will not like to interfere with the orders of the Licensing Authority or the Lieutenant Governor. The Licensing Authority having arrived at his subjective satisfaction on the basis of the material before him that the petitioner is not a fit person to hold an arms license in the interest of public interest, security and peace, this Court will neither interfere with the same nor will substitute its own findings with the findings of the licensing authority. I, therefore, do not find any merits in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no orders as to costs.