Madhya Pradesh High Court

Subodh @ Mintu Pateria vs Commissioner on 14 October, 2022

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                                                       W.P. No.11106/2018
                                    1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT JABALPUR
                            BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                  ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2022
            WRIT PETITION No. 11106 of 2018
        BETWEEN:-
        SUBODH @ MINTU PATERIA S/O SHRI
        NARMADA PRASAD PATERIA, AGED
        ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        BUSINESS   R/O    MAHARAJPUR,
        DISTRICT CHHATARPUR (MADHYA
        PRADESH)


                                                     .....PETITIONER
        (BY SMT. AMRIT KAUR RUPRAH - ADVOCATE)
        AND
1.      COMMISSIONER     SAGAR  DIVISION
        DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)



2.      COLLECTOR/ DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
        CHHATARPUR DISTT. CHHATARPUR
        (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
       This petition coming on for admission this day, the court

passed the following:

                                ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and W.P. No.11106/2018

propriety of the order dated 07.04.2014 passed by respondent No.2

(Collector), whereby the arms licence granted to the petitioner in the

year 2003 has been revoked/cancelled on the ground of pendency of

criminal cases. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated

23.01.2015 passed by respondent No.1 (Commissioner) by which the

order of the Collector has been affirmed as also challenged the order

dated 22.01.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 (Collector).

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the

petitioner was granted the arms licence of pistol/revolver bearing

licence No.MPCHP/I/Maharajpur/17/L/2006. The petitioner also

applied for another licence i.e. 12 bore which was granted bearing

licence No.MPCHP/I/Maharajpur/10/L/2003. Thereafter, the licence

was renewed from time to time up to 31.12.2014. During validity of

the licence, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner by the

District Magistrate, Chhatarpur to show cause as to why the arms

licence may not be cancelled due to pendency of some criminal cases.

The District Magistrate without taking into consideration the facts of

the case passed the order dated 07.04.2014 and cancelled the licence.

Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was also preferred by the

petitioner which was dismissed by the respondent No.1 W.P. No.11106/2018

(Commissioner). The review application has been filed by the

petitioner before the respondent No.2 (Collector) indicating that he

has been acquitted of the criminal charges in all the cases. However,

the respondent No.2 (Collector), vide order dated 22.01.2018,

dismissed the review application. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conditions

enumerated under Section 17 sub-Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959

(hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Act") are not fulfilled since the

authority did not record the satisfaction or assign any reason before

cancelling the licence, as such the impugned order deserves to be set

aside.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Saleem Vs.

State of M.P. as reported in 2019 (3) MPLJ 332 to contend that there

is nothing on record to show that the act of the petitioner is affecting

public at large or community. Public safety or public tranquility was

not in peril. Mere registration of criminal offence against the licence

holder is not sufficient reason for cancelling the licence. The order

passed by the licensing authority is without application of mind, W.P. No.11106/2018

arbitrary and without recording subjective satisfaction as required

under Section 17 sub-section 3 of the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the

judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Satish Singh

Vs. District Magistgrate, Sultanpur and others [Writ Petition

No.2491 (M/S) of 2008], wherein it was held that the arms licence

cannot be cancelled merely because the criminal case is pending. He

further relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Habib Vs.

State of U.P & others [C.M.W.P.No. 54236 of 1999] in which it was

held that the mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a

criminal case can be a ground for revocation of arms licence.

6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the

respondents/State vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that

the orders impugned are well reasoned and the reason for cancellation

of licence has been disclosed in the orders, therefore, no interference

is called for. The petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State relied

on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajbahadur Singh Vs.

State of M.P. and others as reported in 2009 (2) MPLJ 291, in

which it was held that various cases registered under the Indian Penal W.P. No.11106/2018

Code and also the Arms Act, which are sufficient to indicate that the

security to public peace and public safety are at peril.

8. Learned counsel for respondents also relied on the judgment of

Jahangir Khan Vs. State of M.P. and other as reported in 2010 (3)

MPLJ 488, in which it is held that only when any of the 5 conditions,

as enumerated under section 17(3) of the Act of 1959, are fulfilled

then arms licence can be suspended or revoked.

9. In the present case, some criminal cases have been registered

against the petitioner and, therefore, it satisfies the condition of

section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959.

10. Heard the learned counsel for parties.

11. Section 17 of the Arms Act of 1959 provides that :-

"17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.

--

(1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence-holder by notice in writing to deliver- up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice.

(2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed.

(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence--

W.P. No.11106/2018

(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or

(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or

(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or

(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.

(4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof.

(5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefore and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement."

12. On perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that the

licence has been cancelled on the ground of the pendency of criminal

cases against the petitioner. The crux of the matter is that whether the

petitioner has a right to possess the fire arm. The scheme of the Act

discloses that grant of arms licence is a privilege extended by the W.P. No.11106/2018

State to the petitioner concerned. In the impugned order, the licensing

authority has not recorded any satisfaction for cancelling the licence.

Merely due to registration of the case, the licence cannot be

cancelled. Nothing is on record to show that the public safety

affecting public tranquility or going to be affected because of the

petitioner.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the inescapable conclusion,