Deepak Tyagi vs The Lt. Governor Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 8944 Del

$~59.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       W.P.(C) No.2379/2015
        DEEPAK TYAGI                                            ..... Petitioner
                           Through: Mr. H.S. Saini, Adv.
                                    Versus
    THE LT. GOVERNOR NCT OF DELHI & ORS         ..... Respondents
                  Through: Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Adv. for GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                          ORDER

% 02.12.2015

1. The petition impugns the order dated 13th November, 2013 of Hon'ble

the Lt. Governor, Delhi acting as an Appellate Authority under Section 18 of

the Arms Act, 1959 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against

the order dated 17th December, 2012 of the respondent no.3 Additional

Commissioner of Police (ACP) (Licensing) cancelling the arms licence

earlier issued to the petitioner.

2. The petition came up before this Court first on 13th March, 2015, when

finding that the petitioner has not filed all the documents the matter was

adjourned. Thereafter also the matter was adjourned from time to time and

last to 28th January, 2016. The petitioner applied for early hearing and which

application came up before this Court yesterday when the same was allowed.

Though the counsel for the petitioner was asked to argue the petition

yesterday itself for the purposes of admission but on request of the counsel,

the matter was adjourned to today. The counsel for the petitioner has been

heard.

3. A notice dated 1st December, 2012 was issued to the petitioner who

had approached the office of the respondent no.3 ACP (Licensing) for

renewal of his arms licence to show cause why his licence should not be

cancelled owing to the petitioner being involved in as many as five First

Information Reports (FIRs) and the petitioner having not informed the

respondents of the same. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice

and was also given a personal hearing.

4. The respondent no.3 ACP (Licensing), finding that there were three

cases against the petitioner, one of electricity theft and two of cheating and

notwithstanding the contention of petitioner that the same were registered

due to disputes in financial transaction and that he had got the said cases

quashed by paying and settling the matter with the other parties vide letter

dated 17th December, 2012 cancelled the licence of the petitioner. The

respondent no.3 ACP (Licensing) reasoned that in view of the repeated

criminal involvements and dishonest dealings of the petitioner and in totality

of circumstances, the petitioner, in the interest of public safety, was not a

suitable person to hold an arms licence.

5. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal holding the order of

the respondent no.3 ACP (Licensing) to be a fair one in the facts and

circumstances of the case and requiring no interference.

6. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the arms licence of

the petitioner could have been cancelled and/or renewal thereof denied to the

petitioner only if the petitioner was found to have misused the firearm and

which is not the case here. It is contended that the FIRs registered against the

petitioner and on the basis whereof the arms licence has been cancelled are

also not of a criminal nature. It is contended that the facts of the judgment

dated 29th April, 2015 of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA

No.41/2015 titled Parveen Kumar Beniwal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi relied

upon by the respondents in their counter affidavits are entirely

distinguishable.

7. I am unable to agree, the Courts have repeatedly held that no one can

claim a licence to a firearm as a matter of right and that a citizen cannot

assert a right to hold a firearm licence on the ground of threat perception and

that whether there is a perception of threat to the security of a citizen has to

be considered by the licensing authority and not by the Court. The petitioner

in the present case also claims a right to keep a firearm for the reason of

dealing in land and for which reason he fears his security.

8. Just like a threat perception is a question of fact, of assessment of

which the police is the sole repository and is a factual finding in which the

Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India will ordinarily not interfere, so is the question, whether a particular

person is a fit person to hold an arms licence or not a question of fact which

the licensing authority / police is competent authority to assess and in which

the High Court, in exercise of power of judicial review not interfere except

under well defined parameters. An arms licence has been held to be a

statutory privilege, in the sole discretion of the authority vested with the

authority to exercise the power in this regard. The said question of fact is to

be ascertained by the authorities concerned and whether a person is entitled

to the said privilege or not is a question of fact as held on the basis of

plethora of judgments in order dated 2nd November, 2015 in W.P.(C)

No.6520/2015 titled Yashpal Singh Vs. Licensing Authority, Joint

Commissioner of Police.

9. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the licensing

authority and/or the Appellate Authority had no material before them to hold

that the petitioner is not a fit person to hold an arms licence. Admittedly, the

petitioner was an accused in several FIRs which were ultimately quashed on

the petitioner arriving at a settlement with the complainants therein. The

same is abundant proof of the petitioner having a tendency to break the laws

and breaking of which laws, the legislative has deemed fit to make an

offence. Once the legislature has made the same an offence, at least for the

purpose of an arms licence, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that his

aberration is of a civil and not a criminal nature. It matters not that the

petitioner, under threat of punishment, got the FIRs quashed. There is no

error in the perception of the licensing authority and the Appellate Authority,

of such a person having a tendency to break the laws and thus not a fit

person to hold a firearm.

10. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the judgments

annexed to the writ petition but which judgments including of Allahabad

High Court have been considered in the subsequent judgments of this Court

and have been held to be no longer good law.

There is thus no merit in the petition.

Dismissed.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

DECEMBER 02, 2015/'pp'..