The petitioner who happens to be a licensee of Single Barrel Gun, appears to be aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.05.2010, passed by Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi on stay application of the petitioner in Appeal No. 18 of 2009-10 filed under Section 18 of the Arms Act. It appears that the petitioner was granted licence for Single Barrel Gun and the said licence was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Jalaun on 22.04.2010. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed an appeal, in which he has filed a stay application for staying the operation of the cancellation order. The stay application was rejected by the impugned order. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no reason for rejecting the stay application has been given. He has also submitted that the fire arm is necessary for security of the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.
From the perusal of the impugned order dated 22.04.2010, it transpires that the present proceeding of cancellation of fire arm licence has been initiated because of the pendency of the Case Crime No. 1 of 2007, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3/1 S.C./S.T. Act and another case bearing Case Crime No 140 of 1975, under Sections 147, 326, 504 and 506 I.P.C. It appears before the District Magistrate it was argued that the case which was lodged against the petitioner as Case Crime No. 140 of 1975 the petitioner has been acquitted, whereas so far as the present case is concerned, he has been falsely implicated. The District Magistrate has passed the impugned order of cancellation without giving due weight to the petitioner's submission. It has also been submitted that merely on the basis of pendency of one case which is not of serious nature, the petitioner's valuable right to hold the fire arm licence cannot be taken away. In the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner the Divisional Commissioner has rejected the petitioner's stay application without assigning any reason. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be justified particularly in the circumstances that the appellate authority has not recorded any reason while rejecting the stay application. It is well settled that the Courts/Tribunals or the quasi judicial authorities are supposed to pass the reasoned order and the reason recorded must be based on the sound reasoning. In absence of reason, the order is just like a body without life. In view of that, I am of the firm opinion that the impugned order dated 19.05.2010 passed by Divisional Commissioner rejecting the petitioner's application for interim relief is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed. In the result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.05.2010, to the extent by which stay application has been rejected, is quashed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties concerned. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the hearing. It is further provided that for the period four months till the decision in the appeal, the operation of the order dated 22.04.2010 shall be kept in abeyance. This Court is not recording any reason for staying the order of cancellation of fire arms licence as that may affect the final decision of appeal.
Order Date :- 23.6.2010 AKSI