1. Heard Mr. N.K. Dwivedi for the petitioner Surjeet Singh and the standing counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned orders.
2. It appears that the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar i.e. respondent no. 2 had granted two arm licenses, one in regard to rifle and another in regard to DBBL gun to the petitioner. On the basis of said licenses, the petitioner had purchased a DBBL gun no. 6654 B/8 and rifle no. 89 AB 2094. One criminal case arising out of case crime no. 99 of 2001 under section 30 Arms Act was registered against the petitioner at police station Nawabganj, district Kanpur Nagar. In view of the fact that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, the respondent no. 2 proceeded to cancel the arm licenses granted in favour of the petitioner and held an inquiry. After inquiry, both the licenses were cancelled vide the order dated 22.2.2002 (Annexure no. 16 to the writ petition). The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 1 under section 18 of the Arms Act, which was dismissed on 14.5.2002 (Annexure 17 to the writ petition). The said two orders passed by respondent no. 1 and 2 have been impugned in this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge under section 30 of the Arms Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar, vide his judgment and order dated 16.4.2008 rendered in sessions trial no. 1029 of 2006 State vs. Sardar Surjeet Singh. It was, therefore, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that very foundation of the case regarding cancellation of arm licenses has been demolished by the acquittal order, therefore, the order cancelling the petitioner's arm licenses can not be upheld. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 2005 (52) ACC 400, Ram Sanehi vs. Commissioner Devipatan Division Gonda and another in support of his submissions.
4. The respondent no.2 has filed counter affidavit disclosing therein that the cost of Rs. 5,000/- as directed by this court on 21.12.2009 has already been paid to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar is present in person in compliance of the said order.
5. The learned standing counsel very frankly conceded that there is no other criminal case against the petitioner nor any other incriminating material was taken into consideration while cancelling the arm licenses of the petitioner.
6. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already been acquitted of the charge on which basis his arm licenses were cancelled, the impugned orders can not be sustained.
7. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The impugned orders dated 22.2.2002 and 14.5.2002 passed respectively by the respondent no. 2 and 1 are quashed.
8. In case the petitioner's aforesaid licenses have already expired it will be open to the petitioner to apply for renewal. If any application for renewal of the arm licenses is moved, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law on priority basis.
Order Date :- 13.1.2010 RKSh