Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14258 of 2018 Petitioner :- Chandrabhushan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mainuddin Ahamad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
In the present case, arms licence of the petitioner was canceled on the ground that proceedings were undertaken against the petitioner under section 151/107 and 116 of Cr.P.C. on three occasions i.e. 25.5.2008, 26.5.2008 and on 27.5.2008. The licensing authority on the basis of the aforesaid proceedings found that the petitioner used to threat the general public by his licensed weapon and there is likelihood of disturbance of public peace and public order. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on the same grounds.
Mainuddin Ahamad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid proceedings were undertaken on the basis of small altercation and it was not repeated thereafter. Presently, there is no threat to the public peace or public order, therefore the impugned orders be set-aside and the petitioner's fire arm licence be restored.
Mrs. Archana Tyagi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that the proceedings were undertaken against the petitioner under sections 151/107 and 116 of Cr.P.C. for security and for maintaining of peace, which was repeatedly disturbed by the petitioner on 25.5.2008, 26.5.2008 and on 27.5.2008. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner was indulged in a repeated act whereby there was breach of peace. The licensing authority has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the conduct of the petitioner was not good and on the basis of the material available it was deemed necessary for security of public peace and for public order to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner. The aforesaid proceedings initiated against the petitioner under sections 151/107 and 116 of Cr.P.C. on three occasions i.e. 25.5.2008, 26.5.2008 and on 27.5.2008 has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore there is no reason to disturb the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority.
In this regard, it is relevant to quote the following judgments wherein it is has been held that subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority cannot be interfered by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
"The licensing authority is in the field, therefore, is the best judge who can assess the situation on the basis of material which are before him. Such an assessment cannot be substituted by this Court which is no way connected or does not have any inkling of situations. This Court cannot undertake any exercise to determine the facts leading to the subjective satisfaction of the licencing authority on the basis of situation then existing, except there are material to show as to how the satisfaction is perverse or based on no material. (See Jagat Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1997 (34) ACC 499).
There must be subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority that the licensee is not fit to continue holding of licence. If the licensing authority is satisfied of the fact that a continued existence of fire arms licence with a person charged with various offence may endanger security of public peace and public safety then revocation of licence under Section 17 cannot be said to arbitrary or without jurisdiction. (See 1999 SCC Online Pat 206, (1999) 3 PLJR 203, Tej Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others.)"
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 SB