Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42799 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jalaj Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Munna Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Munna Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, of 1959") as to why his arms license be not cancelled on the ground of his involvement in a criminal case bearing Case Crime No. 76/2013 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 436 and 429 of I.P.C. and 3 (11) 4 of SC/ST Act wherein the allegations against the petitioner was to commit mischief by fire with intent to destroy houses of Harijan, to assault them and misuse of licensed fire arm during the occurrence.
3. The petitioner filed a reply to the aforesaid notice and submitted that at the time of alleged occurrence, his licensed arm was deposited at the shop and the allegations made in the aforesaid criminal case are false. However, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, respondent no.3 passed an order dated 30.10.2014, under Section 17 (3) of the Act, of 1959 whereby the arms licence of the petitioner was cancelled considering the allegations made in the aforesaid criminal case and also considering that the petitioner was indulged in the criminal act, therefore, it was deemed necessary for security of public peace and for public safety to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Act, of 1959 before the Commissioner Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur which was dismissed vide order dated 22.9.2018 on the basis of a finding that there was no illegality in the order passed by the licensing authority cancelling the arms licence of the petitioner considering that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case having serious allegations.
5. The above referred both the orders are impugned in the present writ petition.
6. Munna Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid criminal case was lodged against the petitioner on false allegations. The licenced weapon of the petitioner was deposited in the shop, therefore, the allegations of misuse of licensed firearm is apparently false. However, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid criminal case was lodged against the petitioner and he is presently facing trial in the aforesaid case and further submitted that mere pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner in the aforesaid criminal case are very serious in nature as the petitioner was involved in putting on fire the residential huts of Harijans, he was also involved in assaulting them and he also fired from his licensed weapon and there was an attempt to culpable homicide and presently the trial is pending. The petitioner who is involved in such crime where there was a threat to the public at large, is not entitled to keep the fire arms license, therefore, the authorities have rightly on the basis of material available arrived at a subjective satisfaction in the facts and circumstances of the present case, deemed necessary for security of public peace and for public safety to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner.
8. It is not in dispute that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner in the abovementioned offences, wherein the petitioner was involved in putting fire the residential houses of Harijans, assaulting the harijan persons and committed misuse of licensed firearm, presently trial is pending. The aforesaid circumstances were found sufficient by the licensing authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that it deemed necessary for security of public peace and for public safety to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner. The subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority which is based on the material available on record cannot be disturbed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. In this regard relevant paragraph of the following judgments are mentioned hereinafter:
"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.)"
10. In view of the above discussion, on facts as well as on law, there is no illegality in the impugned orders on facts as well as on law.
11. There is no merit in the writ petition.
12. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.10.2021 SB