Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40464 of 2016 Petitioner :- Prem Chandra Vats Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Upon a notice being issued to the petitioner on 28.2.2014 on the basis of a police report dated 14.1.2014 that the petitioner was implicated in the Case Crime No. 585 of 2013 under Sections 307/506 IPC, the petitioner filed his reply on 20.5.2014. Thereafter the District Magistrate on 10.2.2015 cancelled the firearm licence of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved thereafter filed an Appeal and when the appeal was also dismissed on 19.5.2016, the instant writ petition has been filed.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no finding with regard to disturbing the public peace and public safety had been given in the order and, therefore, the order could not have been passed under Section 17 (3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the Police had submitted its report on 14.1.2014 with regard to the fact that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under Sections 307/506 of IPC then also it had not given any specific incident which could lead to the conclusion that at the time of the submission of the report there was any such incident which had taken place which could make any reasonable person to come to a conclusion that the possession of firearm with the petitioner would disturb public peace and tranquility.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that simple involvement in a criminal case could not have been a ground for cancellation of the firearm licence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted a supplementary affidavit and stated that the trial of the petitioner, after the incident was tried in Case No. 318 of 2018 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ FTC-II, Gautam Budh Nagar, had also resulted in an acquittal on 17.11.2018 and, he, therefore, submits that even the ground which was available was no longer there.
Learned Standing Counsel, however, in reply, submitted that once the petitioner was involved in a criminal case possession of a firearm with the petitioner would definitely endanger public peace and tranquility.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, the Court is of the view that when the licence of firearm of the petitioner is to be cancelled, a categorical finding ought to be there that the possession of the firearm with the petitioner was dangerous at the time when the show cause notice was issued with regard to certain incident which had happened and that incident was dangerous for public peace and tranquility. In the absence of any such finding, the firearm licence of the petitioner could not have been cancelled. Under such circumstances, the impugned order dated 19.05.2016 passed by the respondent no. 3 and the order dated 10.02.2015 passed by the respondent no.2 are set aside.
However, as the firearm licence was cancelled in the year 2014 it would be in the interest of justice that the firearm licence be not restored automatically. The petitioner may apply for a fresh firearm licence as per the Arm Rules, 2016. If the petitioner applies within a period of one month from today then the application shall be disposed of within a period of two months, thereafter, if there is no other legal impediment.
With these observations, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 PK (Siddhartha Varma,J.)