Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 64858 of 2012 Petitioner :- Ranveer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghan Shyam Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Shri Ashish Mani Tripathi, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Ghan Shyam Dubey learned counsel for the petitioner.
The present petition is directed against the orders of cancellation of fire arm licence of the petitioner dated 26.11.2008 and 16.8.2012.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sole ground of cancellation of fire arm licence is pendency of the criminal case namely Case Crime No.159A of 2001 under Sections 504, 506 and 323 IPC. The District Magistrate/Licensing Authority had proceeded on the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police dated 2.1.2002 to arrive at a conclusion that allowing the petitioner to carry the fire-arm would result in breach of law and order situation.
Submission is that no independent enquiry whatsoever had been undertaken by the Licensing Authority before proceeding on the report submitted by the Police Authorities. Reliance is placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in 1978 AWC, 122 (Sheo Prasad Mishra vs. District Magistrate) to submit that mere registration of the First Information Report or lodging of the criminal case cannot be taken as a ground to cancel the fire-arm licence. The Division Bench has relied upon the earlier decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Masi Uddin vs. Commissioner, Allahabad, 1972 ALJ 573 wherein it has been held:-
"A licence may be cancelled, inter-alia, on the ground that it is "necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety, to do so. The District Magistrate has not recorded a finding that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the licence. The mere existence of enmity between a licencee and another person would not establish the "necessary" connection with security of the public peace or public safety. In the case before us also the District Magistrate has not recorded any finding that it was necessary to cancel the licence for the security of public peace or for public safety. All that he has done is to have referred to some applications and reports lodged against the petitioner. The mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis for cancelling the licence. The order passed by the District Magistrate and that passed by the Commissioner cannot, therefore, be upheld on the basis of anything contained in Section 17(3)(b) of the Act."
Similar view has been taken by this Court in various decisions relying upon the Division Bench judgment passed in Sheo Prasad Mishra (supra).
Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, substantiates the orders impugned for the reasoning given therein. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that despite notice given to the petitioner, he did not appear before the Licensing Authority to submit his explanation. The order of cancellation dated 26.11.2008, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from any error.
However, in so far as the order passed by the Appellate Authority is concerned only submission is that reasons given therein cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjustified.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, relevant is to note that the cancellation order has been assailed in appeal on the ground that the First Information Report had been lodged on account of village partibandi. These allegations in the First Information Report are not correct. The allegations made in paragraph '3' of the memo of appeal, according to the learned of the petitioner, had not been given consideration at all.
Having perused the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the order passed by the appellate authority, this Court is of the considered view that the order of rejection of appeal filed by the petitioner is mechanical. The Appellate Authority has failed to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the incident occurred on 11/12/10/2001, which has been made basis of the report dated 2.1.2002 submitted by the Superintendent of Police. It appears that no independent enquiry whatsoever has been done by the Licensing Authority and the appellate order is also silent in this respect of the matter.
As the petitioner has not submitted any explanation before the Licensing Authority, instead of relegating the matter back to the Licensing Authority, while setting aside the appellate order dated 16.8.2012 passed by the respondent no.2, the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority namely Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. Fresh consideration is required to be made by the Appellate Authority on the explanation offered by the petitioner in the memo of appeal after seeking fresh reports regarding the credentials of the petitioner. A reasoned and speaking order is to be passed by the Appellate Authority within a period of two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
Subject to the above observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 Jyotsana