Ravinder vs Addl.Commissioner Of Police ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4943 Del

$~8
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                    Date of Decision: October 28, 2013
+                        W.P.(CRL) 806/2013
      RAVINDER                                  ..... Appellant
                    Through:   Mr.J.K. Chawla Ms.Shisba Chawla, Advs


                         versus


      ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LICENSING)..... Respondent
               Through:  Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. for State


      CORAM:
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J. (Oral)

In this case the petitioner was granted an Arms licence in the

year 1998 bearing No.EDAN/7/1998/9 for 7.62 mm (30 mouser) pistol

and .315 bore rifle, which was valid for the area of Delhi and the State

of U.P. The licence had been renewed from time to time till it was

cancelled /revoked by the respondent vide its order dated 5.9.2011. An

appeal filed before the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi was also dismissed

on 12.9.2012, which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of cancellation /

revocation was passed pursuant to a show cause notice dated

21.6.2011. As per the show cause notice, the petitioner had

approached the office of respondent on 29.1.2010 for renewal (wrongly

mentioned as issuance) of the Arms licence, but the petitioner did not

disclose his involvement in a criminal case. Upon checking of records it

was found that petitioner was involved in the case FIR no.46/2002

under Sections 448/380/34 IPC at P.S. Ashok Nagar; and also a report

was received from the DCP (East District) that the petitioner has a

violent behaviour and in view thereof the licence was suspended with

immediate effect.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order

was passed without any application of mind as a false FIR was

registered at the instance of the tenant of the petitioner, on account of

a landlord tenant dispute, and it was not as if the petitioner had

trespassed into the property of a third person. Counsel also submits

that the landlord tenant dispute was resolved and in fact the petitioner

has sold the tenanted portion to the tenant. It is also submitted that

this aspect of the matter was not considered by the respondent and the

mere fact that this fact was not disclosed was the reason of suspension

of the Arms licence, and thereafter revocation.

Counsel for the State submits that the suspension and

revocation was carried out based on the fact that the petitioner had

concealed the material facts and also the conduct of the petitioner.

I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully perused the

show cause notice dated 21.6.2011, the order of revocation dated

5.9.2011 and the order which had been passed in appeal. While, there

is force in the submission of counsel for the State that the petitioner

had concealed a material fact while praying for renewal of the licence

and in fact the petitioner should have truthfully disclosed the

information sought, however, the court, cannot lose track of the fact

that the FIR which was lodged against the petitioner was on account of

a landlord tenant dispute and the property in which the alleged trespass

was made belonged to the petitioner, to which complainant therein was

the tenant. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should

be given one more opportunity to explain the entire matter and also to

show that the petitioner has not misused the licence which was granted

to him in the year 1998, which is also a material fact which has been

over-looked by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing).

Having regard to the submissions made and without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and in view of the

facts of this case, I deem it appropriate to quash the order of revocation

dated 5.9.2011, till the matter is re-decided by the respondent, with a

direction to the respondent to grant one more opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner, to enable the petitioner to place documents on record to

show that the said FIR was lodged by the tenant, matter was duly

settled, property was sold to the tenant and also the documents of

neighbours and other persons to show his conduct in the colony is

satisfactory and he has never been involved in any untoward incident.

Competent authority will be at liberty to call fresh report from the

residents of the area and a final decision will be taken in the matter

within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

The present petition stands disposed of, in above terms.

(G.S.SISTANI) JUDGE OCTOBER 28, 2013 ssn