Delhi High Court
Satbir Singh vs Lt. Governor, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi ... on 7 March, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No. 215/2011
Satbir Singh ....Petitioner
Through Mr. V.N. Sharma, Advocate.
VERSUS
Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. .....Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 07.03.2011
CM NO. 4694/2011 (delay)
For the reasons contained in the application, the delay in filing
the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of
accordingly.
LPA 215/2011
The appellant was issued Arms License by District Magistrate,
Hansi, Haryana. The said license was registered with the Licensing
Authority in Delhi on 16th August, 1990 and the area of validity was
extended to all over India.
2. In 2004, information was received from SSP, Ghaziabad, Uttar
Pradesh, that the appellant Satbir Singh was found involved in FIR No.
131/04 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Kavi
Nagar, Ghaziabad. It was also alleged that the licensed weapon of the
appellant was used in the said incident causing death.
3. The Licensing Authority after considering the contentions of the
appellant vide order/letter dated 7th November, 2008 cancelled the
arm's license of the appellant. Appeal filed under Section 18 of the
Arms Act, 1959 was also dismissed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi vide order
dated 25th August, 2010. By the impugned order dated 17th January,
2011, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the licensed
weapon, at the relevant time, was deposited with a arm's dealer and
the appellant at the time of the alleged incident on 25th July, 2003 was
under medical treatment in Lok Priya Hospital, Ghaziabad. He had been
diagnosed with Hip Joint Fracture.
5. The aforesaid contention of the appellant has been duly
considered in the order dated 25th August, 2010, passed by the Lt.
Governor, Delhi. The operative portion of the said order reads as
under:-
"I find that the appellant's licence had been
cancelled on the ground that he had been found
to have been involved in criminal case in
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and had not informed
the Licensing Authority about his involvement in
this case. In view of this, Licensing Authority had
held that he is unfit to hold an arms licence. The
appellant has defended himself, stating that he
had been falsely implicated in the said case and
that he had been acquitted by the trial Court.
However, in this regard it is pertinent to observe
that the acquittal has come about on account of
the fact that prosecution witnesses turned hostile.
Further, of significance is the fact that the
concerned Inspecting Officer in the said case had
also failed to send the fire arm and the bullet
recovered from the body of the deceased for
comparison to the FSL. It must also be kept in
mind that the appellant is charged with a serious
offence and, therefore, it is natural on the part of
the Licensing Authority to be apprehensive about
the appellant conduct. With regard to the
submissions that the appellant could not have
been involved as he had been confined to bed on
account of injury, it needs to be mentioned that
this is for the competent Criminal Court to
consider. As far as the issue of an arms licence is
concerned, it is absolutely essential that the
Licensing Authority is satisfied that the person
who is seeking a license is suitable to hold an arms
licence. In the present case, the Licensing
Authority has passed the impugned order after
considering all aspects of the case and I find no
reason to interfere with it. The appeal is
dismissed."
6. This court while exercising power of judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution is concerned with the decision making process
and not the decision on merits. The relevant facts and circumstances
have been taken into consideration by the authorities concerned. The
factum that the appellant was acquitted has not been disregarded but
has been given due consideration. It has been observed in the order
dated 25th August, 2010 that the licensing authority has to be satisfied
that a person who is issued the arms licence is suitable to hold the
licence. There is relevant and cogent material which has been noticed
and referred to by the authorities. The order passed by the authorities
under Arms Act, 1959 cannot be said to be perverse or illegal which
requires interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. We do
not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed in limine.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
March 7, 2011
kkb
