By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.11.2005 passed in Appeal No. 242 of 2005 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kanpur and the order dated 23.12.2004 passed by the District Magistrate Kanpur Dehat in Case No. 94 of 2002.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful having the Arm License of DBBL by the petitioner and also commanding the respondents to return the gun to the petitioner.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a licensee of D.B.B.L. gun granted to the petitioner after due enquiry. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his licence may not be cancelled on the ground of his involvement in Case Crime No. 299A of 2000, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 336, 504, 506 IPC, Case crime No. 176 of 2002, under Sections 304-A/201 IPC, Case Crime No. 284 of 2002, under Section 3/5 of Goonda Act and N.C.R. No. 75 of 2002, under Sections 323, 504 IPC registered against him. The aforesaid notice was contested by the petitioner denying the allegations levelled against him. He has also averred in his explanation that he has been acquitted in Case Crime No. 176 of 2002, under Section 304-A/201 IPC and he had no knowledge about any other cases lodged against him. He has also contended that respondent no. 3 with a view to tarnish the image of the petitioner who is a member of Bahujan Samajwadi Party and also to cause him loss and injury made fictitious complaint against him which is nothing but a partibandi. It appears from the impugned order dated 27.8.2003 that the licensing authority recorded his satisfaction that from the act and behaviour of the petitioner it is not in the interest of security of public to permit the arm license to remain with such a person and cancelled the arm licence of the petitioner vide order dated 27.8.2003. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority under Section 18 of the Act and the appellate authority remanded the matter back for fresh consideration by the licensing authority vide order dated 28.7.2003. Thereafter licensing authority vide order dated 23.12.2004 cancelled the arm license issued to the petitioner after a detailed enquiry on the ground that the petitioner had obtained the license on a wrong address with a view to conceal his criminal antecedents by playing fraud. Aggrieved against this order petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate authority confirmed the said order vide order dated 28.11.2005. It is under this circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents have not recorded any finding that it was necessary to cancel the licence for security of public peace or public safety and mere involvement of the petitioner in aforesaid criminal case could not form basis for cancelling the licence. He has also contended that mere involvement in criminal cases cannot in any way effect the public security and public interest. However, it is further contended that petitioner in all the cases referred in the impugned order has either been acquitted or the final report has been filed before the Court.
Learned standing counsel refuting the submissions of counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Magistrate in the present case was fully justified in cancelling the petitioner's license on being satisfied that the grounds exist for suspension within the meaning of Section 17(3) of the Act.
Learned Standing Counsel has further contended that the petitioner has obtained the license by concealing this fact that the petitioner is a permanent resident of P.S. Bhognipur, District- Kanpur Dehat. At the time of submission of the application for license, the petitioner has not disclosed this fact that he is a permanent resident of P.S. Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat. The petitioner has concealed the fact regarding the pendency of the criminal cases. In such a situation the respondents submit that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
The question, which is required to be considered is whether the licence given to the petitioner under section 13 of the Act is liable to be cancelled. Section 17 of the Act provides the power for suspension or revocation of the licence by an order in writing. Sub-section 3 of Section 17 provides that the licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence. The suspension of an arm licence and revocation of arm licence are two different concepts and have different consequences. The grounds for suspension of a licence or revocation of licence are same. The grounds for suspension and revocation although being same but it is left to the discretion of the licensing authority to decide either to suspend or to revoke the licence in facts of the particular case.
In the present case the grounds for suspension are within purview of Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act. Licensing authority has cancelled the license of the petitioner after taking into consideration its effect on public peace and public safety in the area. Therefore, it is the objective satisfaction based upon the material on record that the continued existence of fire arms licence with the petitioner would endanger security of the public peace or the public safety which is required to be judged by the licensing authority. It is no doubt true that the licensing authority is given the power under section 17(3) to revoke or suspend a licence. That does not mean that the licensing authority has no jurisdiction to suspend or revoke the licence once granted. The power to grant would include to suspend or cancel even if there is no stipulation in the Act. Therefore, the authority is well within its competence to pass appropriate order.
Question whether such reasons are right or not, is not for the court to consider, unless reasons are perverse or the exercise of power is mala fide. The Arms Act does not confer a privilege on the person to whom the licence is granted. Perusal of the impugned orders shows that the licensing authority as well as the appellate authority have passed orders giving reasons and have recorded satisfaction that permitting the arm licence to remain with the petitioner is against the public peace and security and safety of the people.
Allegation against the petitioner was that he had obtained the license fraudulently on a wrong address without disclosing his criminal antecedents. The petitioner has concealed the fact regarding the pendency of the criminal case. As the petitioner has never mentioned that he is a permanent resident of P.S. Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat, therefore, no inquiry by the concerned police station was made and it did not come to the knowledge of the authorities concerned regarding pendency of the criminal case while granting license to the petitioner. The said action of the petitioner is a concealment of fact for the purpose of obtaining the license. If at the time of obtaining the license the correct address had been mentioned, an inquiry by the concerned police would have been made. Such an enquiry would have lead to disclosure of antecedents of the present petitioner. By concealing this fact he obtained a license. It can safely be inferred that the petitioner in order to procure a license for achieving the oblique purpose concealed the fact that he did not belong to area where from he sought the license. The continuance of the license with such a person who has obtained the same by concealing the fact relating to his antecedents can amount to endangering the public peace and public safety. Such conduct of a person will amount to endangering the public safety and peace. Thus, I am satisfied that there was material before the licensing authority and on the said material the licensing authority has recorded its satisfaction for cancellation of arm licence. The order cancelling the licence and its confirmation in appeal thus cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified.
The second argument of the petitioner's counsel that mere involvement in the criminal cases is not sufficient for cancellation of arm licence. Instant case is not a case of passing of cancellation order merely on the ground of pendency of the criminal cases. It may be true that commission of offence is not the only ground which justifies cancellation of licence. Prevention is part of Criminal law, and action need not await commissioning or non commissioning of offences. Preventive and punitive actions are justified in order to prevent a mischief. Legal niceties, dehors living realities, cannot do honour to the rule of law. If there are good grounds for cancellation of licence, cancellation would be justified. It is not the gift of administrative authorities to see the future with a degree of precision, or to see the visage of things to come. An element of subjective opinion is inevitable in these regions. If the authority forms an opinion on reasonable premises and objectively, the opinion cannot be assailed, only because it lacks the quality of prediction. The material before the District Magistrate which he found acceptable, furnished justification for preventive action.
In the present case also the petitioner has concealed the fact regarding the permanent address, as such in my opinion it will be treated to be suppression of material fact and therefore, in my opinion, the respondents have rightly cancelled the license of the petitioner.
The Apex Court in the judgment of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sansthan versus Ram Ratan Yadav reported in 2003(3) SCC Page 437 and subsequently in A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti Venkateswarulu and others 2005 (SCC (7) Page 177 has clearly held that if there is suppression of material fact, the candidature is liable to be cancelled.
However, as a caution, this court has repeatedly held in its various judgements that in the matter of licensing firearms and regulating possession of guns, State must evolve a proper and realistic policy. Liberal issue of licences for firearms could create a dangerous situation posing even security risks. Firearms can often imperil protection, than ensuring it. Arms in large quantities and those possessing it can pose serious threats to individuals and also to the State. These are matters for the appropriate authority to consider, while formulating a realistic policy, not only regarding licensing of fire arms, but also in evolving an effective programme to contain the growth and spread of dangerous weapons. The right to possess a gun is subject to restrictions in the Act in the interest of public order and safety, as is the intention of the Arms Act.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed, however, without imposing any costs.