Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26844 of 2020
Petitioner :- Nizam Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Chandel,Ram Niwas Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri V.K. Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned order of District Magistrate, Mau dated 19.11.2020 passed under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 on the ground that as per the law laid down in the case of Sadri Ram Vs. District Magistrate / Licensing Authority, Azamgarh and other as reported in 1998(3) AWC 2102 during investigation / enquiry District Magistrate cannot suspend the arm license.
Reliance is also placed on the order of a Coordinate Bench dated 4.11.2020 passed in Writ-C No. 17748 of 2020 (Bhanu Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & others) wherein it has been held that petitioner's arm license cannot be placed under suspension indefinitely till the criminal case pending against him is concluded. It has been observed that petitioner shall submit reply to the notice within a period of two weeks from today and District Magistrate will pass necessary orders in accordance with law keeping in view the above observations of the Court. However, till such orders are passed, the suspension of petitioner's fire arm license shall remain in abeyance and shall abide by the ultimate order to be passed by the District Magistrate.
Sri Girish Vishwakarma referring to the show cause notice submits that there is an allegation of misuse of arm license by the petitioner and there is a beat report to the effect that if license is allowed to stand in vogue, then unpleasant incident can take place, which is an exigency mentioned in paragraph 11B of the order passed in the case of Sadri Ram (supra), therefore the case of Sadri Ram (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is also submitted that similarly law laid down in the case of Bhanu Prakash (supra) relying on the order of this Court in the case of Virendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others (2005) 3 JIC 900 (Alld.) also not relevant to the facts of the present case because in that matter merely pendency of criminal case was taken as a ground for suspension of arm license whereas in the present case there are specific allegations of misuse of fire arm possessed by the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is apparent that in the show cause notice reasons for suspension has been shown. It is also true that law is already crystallized on the aspect that arm license cannot be suspended / put in abeyance for indefinite period.
In view of the such facts, it is directed that petitioner shall file reply to the show cause notice within seven days if not already filed and then District Magistrate, Mau shall consider the circumstances mentioned in the reply and accompanying documents on its own merit and shall pass speaking order deciding the case of the petitioner in accordance with the provision contained in the Arms Act, 1959 and the Rules made thereunder within a further period of 30 days.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Arif