Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8th June, 2001 passed by District Magistrate, Balrampur, cancelling the licence of having N.P. bore rifle of the petitioner and consequent upon dismissal of his appeal by Commissioner, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda dated 18.9.2001 (Annexures 2 & 1 respectively), the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Heard and gone through the records.
Brief facts, relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition, are that the petitioner was granted licence to possess N.P. bore rifle in the year 1992, which was cancelled by the District Magistrate on 5.12.1998 on the ground that five criminal cases were pending as against him. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the then commissioner which was registered as Appeal No. 51, decided on 3.11.1999. The appeal was allowed and the licence was restored. Subsequently, in the year 2000, a criminal case by the local police was registered as against the petitioner under Crime No. 174 of 2000, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code showing therein that the petitioner has opened firing on the police party and, as usual, none of the member of the police party received any injury. On this ground, a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner and ultimately his licence was cancelled by the district magistrate vide order dated 8.6.2001 (Annexure No. 2). In the said order, the District Magistrate has mentioned nine cases against the petitioner. Out of nine cases, eight cases relate to year 1988 to the year 1996. All these cases were said to have been pending as against the petitioner prior to earlier notice issued to him, which was discharged by the order of the Commissioner, as mentioned above. Now, the only new case registered against the petitioner is that of attempt to murder on the police party, which is a non-injury case. As such, the notice issued against the petitioner exhibits the growing tendency among the police personnels and executive officers that whenever they find a person having annoying gestures against them, they continue to hunt for him till he succumbs. This is the experience of this court and this tendency deserves to be curbed. Administrative mischief cannot be allowed to prevail over the concept of Rule of Law . This Court has held in a number of decisions that the rights of a citizen cannot be taken away or snatched, save as provided by law on the point but the deaf ears of the administrative machinery are not ready to hear the apathy of poor citizens which is resulting in disillusionment with the State. I am afraid, I find it suicidal for the very existence of the constitutional mechanism and, thereby, it amounts to treason. Exhibition of disrespect to the law of land by public authorities is resulting in loss of majesty of the state, which is suicidal in as much as it amounts to digging the very basis of the origin of state.
Recently in Gurdev Kaur & others v. Kaki & others, 2006(4) SER-371, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given a note of caution to such orders which are stagmatic on the justice delibery system in the mind of the public at large and has held; "Judges must administer law according to the provisions of law. it is the bounden duty of judges to discern legislative intention in the process of adjudication. Justice administered according to individual's whim, desire, inclination and notion of justice would lead to confusion, disorder and chaos."
In Satish Singh Vs. District Magistrate, Sultanpur, reported in 2009 (5) ALJ 679, this Court has held that a licencing authority can revoke the licence only if it deems to necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety. This is what contained in Section 17 of the Arms Act. In this particular case, the cases registered against the petitioner were apparently not registered by any citizen of this country except the government officials. He was booked under Goondas Act and booked several times by forest authorities under Forest Act. How the petitioner can be said to be a threat to public peace or tranquility? A full bench of this court has held in Kailash Nath and ors. Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1985, All 291 that 'a civil right being adversely affected is a condition precedent for attracting the 'audi alteram parten rule'. While holding this the full bench of this Court has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Gopal Chaturvedi Vs. State of Maharahstra reported in AIR 1970 SC 158 and Union of India Vs. J.N. Sinha, reported in AIR 1971 SC 40. It was further held that rule of natural justice cannot be invoked unless civil consequences ensue. The later decision of Hon'ble Apex Court has been relied upon by a full bench of this Court in Chhanga Prasad Sahu Vs. State of U.P. and ors. reported in AIR 1986 All 142. Facts of this case exhibits that there is no finding to the effect that possession of arm by the petitioner was detrimental to public peace, safety and security.
In Habib Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783, it was held as under:
"The question as to whether mere Involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of the licence under Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Sheo Prasad Misra v. The District Magistrate, Basti and ors., wherein the Division Bench relying upon the earlier decision in Masi Uddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad, found that mere involvement in criminal case cannot, in any way, affect the public security or public interest and the order cancelling or revoking the licence of fire arm has been set aside. The present impugned orders also suffer from the same infirmity as was pointed out by the Division Bench in the above-mentioned cases. I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench that these orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed."
''There is yet another reason that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has been acquitted from the aforesaid criminal case and at present there is neither any case pending, nor any conviction has been attributed to the petitioner, as is evident from Annexure SA-I and II to the supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to have the fire-arm licence. It is submitted by petitioner's counsel that the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges.'' In Fakir Chand Vs. Comnr. Meerut Mandal, Meerut reported in 2002 (11) ACC 518 ACC 783, it was held as under:
'The licensing authority and the appellate authority simply referred to the report of the station officer of the police station, which was not proved by him. The same was thus legally not admissible in evidence. It is not disputed that the station officer, who submitted the report, was not present personally at the place of occurence, therefore, he could not have any personal knowledge of the incident and the case of the prosecution has not been supported by the prosecution witnesses in the criminal court. The said case, therefore, resulted in clear acquittal of the accused persons. The judgment and order passed by the criminal court dated 6.9.1997 has become final which is binding upon the parties. Thus at present there are contradictory and conflicting findings recorded by the authorities/courts below about the same incident, therefore, the submission, made by the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted. In view of these facts, validity of the impugned orders cannot be sustained."
These authorities have been relied upon by this court in Ram Kripal Singh Vs. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, reported in (2006) 24 LCD 114. There are number of decisions in which this court is repeatedly observing that it is settled law that where the initiation of a criminal case, even of serious nature is made the basis of cancellation/suspension of arms licence and the license holder gets an acquittal, the very foundation of the action against the licence would be treated as non-existing. Due to this reason initiation of a criminal case cannot sustain an order of revocation of arms license.
For the reasons, aforementioned, the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate and order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Annexure no.2 and 1 respectively) are hereby quashed.
Let a writ be issued in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 18.09.2001 and 8.06.2001, contained in Annexure Nos.1 and 2 to the writ petition. The District Magistrate, Balrampur is directed to decide the matter afresh strictly in accordance with law in such a fashion that respect of rule of law must exhibit and administrative exigency must not be given an upper hand.
Order Date :- 27.4.2012 Ram.