Heard Shri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties.
Under challenge in the instant writ petition are the orders dated 12.09.2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki cancelling the arms-licence of the petitioner and the order dated 21.04.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order cancelling the licence under Section 18 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order cancelling the licence by the District Magistrate, Barabanki is absolutely unlawful for the reason inter-alia that the petitioner has neither contravened the conditions of the licence nor has conducted himself in a manner which could attract revocation of the licence on the ground enumerated in Section 17(3) of the Arms Act. In support of his contention, he further states that the incident regarding which a show cause notice was given to the petitioner is not in any way related to the petitioner and further that the arms-licence of main person against whom the allegation of indulgence in activities posing threat to public peace and public safety was made namely; Viddyut Kumar Jain, was also cancelled simultaneously with the cancellation of the licence of the petitioner, however, in the appeal preferred by Viddyut Kumar Jain, the order revoking the arms licence has been set aside and the licence of the arm in favour of Viddyut Kumar Jain has been restored. He also states that the proceedings under Sections. 151/107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have also been concluded way back on 22.10.2002 and the petitioner was required to execute the personal bond for maintaining the public safety and peace for a period of six months only. He also stated that since the initial suspension of the arms-licence, considerable period of time has elapsed and the whole situation which formed the alleged basis of cancellation of petitioner's arms-licence also does not exist at the moment.
On the other hand , learned Standing counsel tried hard to justify the order of cancellation of the arms-licence of the petitioner and also the order rejecting the appeal filed by him under Section 18 of the Arms-Act. In this regard, he submitted that the petitioner has been involved in various kinds of activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public safety and the District Magistrate on the basis of the material available on record arrived at the satisfaction to the effect that the continuance of the petitioner's arms-licence will not be in the interest of maintenance of public peace and public safety. He states that once this satisfaction has been recorded on the basis of the material available on the record, the order cancelling the arms- licence of the petitioner is perfectly lawful and is in accordance with Section 17 of the Arms Act. He states further that the District Magistrate, Barabanki is well within his power to revoke an arms-licence , in case he deems it necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety purpose.
Learned Standing counsel states that having recorded such a satisfaction, District Magistrate, Barabanki, has cancelled the licence of the petitioner and as such the impugned order dated 12.09.2001 does not suffer from any illegality.
The Court has examined the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
A perusal of the order dated 12.09.2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki cancelling the arms-licence of the petitioner, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition, reveals that the District Magistrate, Barabanki has proceeded to take into account the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and his rivals under Sections 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has also considered the joint report submitted by the Up-Zila Magistrate and the Circle Officer (Police), Ram Nagar, District Barabanki. On the basis of the aforesaid two materials, the the District Magistrate, Barabanki has arrived at the conclusion that the continuance of the arms-licence with the petitioner is causing difficulty in maintaining administrative control. When confronted as to whether the joint enquiry report submitted by the Up-Zila Magistrate and the Circle Officer (Police), Ram Nagar, District Barabanki was even provided to the petitioner, learned Standing counsel could not satisfy the Court.
From a perusal of the documents available on record also it does not transpire that the petitioner was even confronted with the said enquiry report submitted jointly by the Up-Zila Magistrate and the Circle Officer (Police), Ram Nagar, District Barabanki.
Thus, non-supply of the report submitted jointly by the Up-Zila Magistrate and the Circle Officer (Police), Ram Nagar, District Barabanki to the petitioner, though the same has been relied upon by the District Magistrate, Barabanki/Licensing Authority while passed the impugned order, vitiates the decision of the District Magistrate, Barabanki for want of observance of principle of natural justice. Hence the impugned order dated 12.09.2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki is liable to be set aside on this score alone.
However, it is also observed that the only other reason indicated by the District Magistrate, Barabanki/Licensing Authority while passing the impugned order that is the proceedings initiated in the year 2000 under Sections 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated about 12 years ago. The said proceedings also culminated into finality in October, 2000 itself. In absence of any other material which can form the ground enunciated in Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, the impugned order cancelling the arms-licence of the petitioner is not sustainable.
A perusal of the appellate order dated 21.04.2004 passed by the Commissioner Faizabad Division, Faizabad also reveals that the appellate authority while passing the order has not addressed itself as to the observance of the principle of natural justice in as much as to whether the joint report was provided to the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Barabanki/Licensing Authority.
For the reasons indicated above, both impugned orders i.e. dated 12.09.2001 passed by the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority, Barabanki and the order dated 21.04.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad /Appellate Authority are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
In view of above, the writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned orders i.e. dated 12.09.2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki/Licensing Authority as contained in Annexure no.6 to the writ petition and the order dated 21.04.2004 passed by the Commissioner Faizabad Division, Faizabad /Appellate Authority as contained in Annexure no.7 to the writ petition are hereby quashed.
The consequences of quashing the impugned orders shall flow.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.3.2012 RK/*