Heard Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anoop Chaubey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Respondent.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2008 passed by the Licensing Authority, i.e. District Magistrate, Gonda cancelling the fire arm license of the petitioner's rifle and also the order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda dismissing the appeals of the petitioner namely Appeal No. 125 of 2003 and Appeal No. 197 of 2008.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner initially received a show cause notice dated 06.01.2003 sent by the District Magistrate, Gonda wherein it was stated that a police report had been received from the local Police Station - Nawabganj, District Gonda along with a recommendation of the Superintendent of Police dated 02.01.2003 against the petitioner. In the aforesaid police report, mention had been made that the petitioner had been able to secure the fire arm license on the basis of a wrong address mentioned in his application form, whereas the licensee had 22 criminal cases pending against him.
On the basis of the said show cause notice, the matter was heard on merits by the learned District Magistraate, Gonda and and order of cancellation of fire arm license was passed on 04.6.2003. In the cancellation order a reference has been made to 27 criminal cases said to be pending against the petitioner and also to the fact that the petitioner had secured the fire arm license by showing himself resident of Village Lolpur, P.S. Nawabganj, District Gonda, whereas the petitioner was the resident of Village Muradipur, P.S. Harraiya, District Basti where there were several criminal cases pending against him. Moreover, in his application form for grant of license, the petitioner had mentioned his name as Dhruva Narayan Singh son of Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, whereas in the document submitted by him in support of his application, his name was shown as Dhruva Kumar Singh son of Mahendra Pratap Singh. In the list of criminal cases that was submitted by the police against the petitioner, 17 criminal cases related to District Basti which indicated that the petitioner was originally the resident of District Basti. The District Magistrate observed that although the petitioner had been acquitted in 18 criminal cases out of 27, the remaining were still pending trial and since the license had been obtained by concealing correct facts about the residential address of the licensee, the license deserved to be cancelled.
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2003 filed an Appeal No. 125 of 2003 which was taken upon 21.06.2003 by the Appellate Authority, the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. In his order dated 21.06.2003 which has been filed as Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition, mention has been made of the pendency of 17 cases against the petitioner and also it was a serious case in which administrative action should be taken separately and the records of the office of the District Magistrate were summoned and next date fixed. In the meantime, the order of cancellation dated 01.06.2003 was stayed.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Appeal No. 125 of 2003 remained pending. Fresh proceedings were initiated by the District Magistrate on a fresh report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Gonda dated 25.06.2007. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 28.06.2007. The petitioner has submitted in his writ petition that he could not get the notice at all of this second proceeding in which the impugned order dated 02.08.2008 has been passed by the District Magistrate cancelling his fire arm license again on the ground of pendency of Case Crime No. 166 of 2004 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 02.08.2008 cancelling the fire arm license of the petitioner again, the petitioner filed an Appeal No. 197 of 2008 before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. Both the appeals were heard together and dismissed by the Appellate Authority while referring to the fact that the petitioner had been able to procure the fire arm license by concealing his correct residential address and giving a wrong residential address.
Besides the merits of the case as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner he has argued on an legal question before this Court which is to the effect that since his fire arm license already stood cancelled again by the order dated 04.06.2003, it could not have been cancelled by the District Magistrate by the order impugned dated 02.08.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred in Sri Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association and Others reported in 1992 (3) SCC 1. It has been submitted on the basis of the said judgment that there is a difference between quashing of an order and staying the operation of an order. If an appeal is entertained and the impugned order is stayed, it would only amount to putting the order impugned in abeyance during the pendency of the appeal. Such an order continues to exists in law so long as the appeal is not disposed of. It cannot be said that it has lost its existence altogether.
This Court has carefully perused the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the stay of operation of an order does not amount to quashing of such an order during the pendency of appeal. It is only the quashing of an order which results in restoration of a position as it stood on the date of passing of the order which is quashed. The stay of the order only means the continuous existence of such order but putting its operation in abeyance.
This Court has perused the order impugned passed by the Licensing Authority on 04.06.2003. The order dated 04.06.2003 incidentally has not been challenged by the petitioner before this Court. In the order dated 04.06.2003, the District Magistrate, Gonda has referred to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 06.01.2003 on the basis of police report dated 02.01.2003. He has also referred to 27 criminal cases pending against him in various police stations of Districts Basti, Faizabad and Gonda including cases under the Gangsters Act and the Goonda Act. It is apparent also from the order dated 04.06.2003 that the District Magistrate has referred to the petitioner's objection to the show cause notice wherein he has said that the petitioner and his brother Ranjeet Singh were initially residents of District Basti, Later on they shifted to District Gonda. However, the District Magistrate has observed that the petitioner had indicated his incorrect name in his application form and had also not indicated that at least 17 cases were filed against him in District Basti. There were 27 cases pending against him. The petitioner may have been acquitted in 18 of such cases, the remaining were still pending trial. The District Magistrate has expressed his opinion that the license had been secured by the petitioner by misleading the authorities or by misrepresentation of his correct address.
The initial order of cancellation of fire arm license dated 04.06.2003 was challenged by the petitioner in appeal as aforesaid and the appeal was also entertained but at the same time while entertaining the appeal the Commissioner has observed that a serious question was involved and separate administrative proceedings should be taken with regard to the licensee who was facing at least 17 criminal cases.
It is on the basis of these observations perhaps, regarding concealment of correct residential address, that an First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner again by the police in Case Crime No. 166 of 2004 at P.S. Nawabganj, District Gonda under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 I.P.C. which related to cheating, the authorities in giving incorrect address and also in making false statement on oath that no criminal case was either lodged against him or was pending in any Court in the whole of State of U.P. This fact was noted by the District Magistrate in initiate fresh proceedings.
This Court has perused the order dated 02.08.2008 passed by the Licensing Authority and also the order passed on 25.08.2010 by the Appellate Authority rejecting both the Appeals of the petitioner.
This Court finds from the same that the petitioner having given a false affidavit on 26.02.2001 while applying for the fire arm license in the first place.This Court cannot overlook the fact of sutufuge exercised by the petitioner in getting the fire arm license. He cannot be given a benefit of a technicality in writ jurisdiction, looking into the facts as mentioned in the order of the Licensing Authority and the Appellate Authority.
The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.8.2019 Asheesh