Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Rajoinder affidavit filed which is taken on record.
This writ petition is directed against the following orders through which petitioner's arm licence was cancelled:
1. Order dated 29.3.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Pratapgarh in Case No.9/4 under Section 17 (3) Arms Act State vs. Anil Kumar
2. Order dated 24.8.2007 passed by Commissioner, Allahabad District, Allahabad in Appeal no.49 Through the second order appeal filed against the first order was dismissed.
Notice was given to the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly pendency of two criminal cases against him and secondly his act of concealment of pendency of the criminal cases against him in his application which he filed for grant of licence. Initially the licence was cancelled through order dated 30.5.2005 against which appeal was filed by the petitioner number of which was Appeal No.4 of 2006. Commissioner, Allahabad division, Allahabad allowed the appeal on 3.4.2006 and remanded the matter. The copy of the order is Annexure-10 to the writ petition. In the said order it was observed that in case petitioner had been acquitted in the cases pending against him and no other criminal case was pending against him and latest police report was also in his favour then District Magistrate would be free to amend (change) his order. Thereafter, again the matter was decided against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 29.3.2007. In case the sole ground for initiating the proceeding and cancellation of the arms licence had been involvement of the petitioner in criminal case then proceedings for cancellation of licence could be dropped on acquittal. However, in my opinion in the instant case the main reason of cancellation of fire arm licence was concealment of the fact of pendency of criminal case by the petitioner at the time of applying for grant of licence.
Main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that through order dated 3.4.2006 while remanding the matter the Commissioner had directed the District Magistrate to drop the proceedings for cancellation of arms licence in case petitioner had been acquitted. In this regard, firstly there was no such clear cut direction. The only direction was that D.M. would be at liberty to review, recall, change or modify (sansodhit) its order. Secondly, learned Commissioner while passing the order dated 3.4.2006 does not appear to be aware of the fact that the main ground or at least one of the grounds was concealment of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority of Supreme Court reported in Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar 2011 (4) S.C.C. 644 wherein it has been held that reformative approach should be adopted and for minor crimes in youth strict view shall not be taken. In the said case a person had been appointed as Head Constable but he had concealed that a case was pending against him. He was working for a long time. However, that principle cannot be applied to the matter of grant of fire arm licence. Moreover contrary view has been taken by the Supreme Court in R. Radhakrishnan v. The Director General of Police and Ors. A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 578 and Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar 1996 (11) S.C.C. 605.
The argument that the District Magistrate should have passed a fresh order and should not have confirmed the show cause notice is not much convincing. It is not the form of the order but the substance which is relevant.
Accordingly, there being no error in the impugned orders writ petition is dismissed.
However, petitioner is at liberty to sell the gun and in that regard neither undue hindrance shall be created nor undue delay shall be caused by the authorities.
Order Date :- 29.3.2012 RS