High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sarvesh Pandey v. State Of U.P.And Another - WRIT - C No. 43572 of 2000  RD-AH 7886 (20 December 2005)
HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.
The present writ petition has been filed against the cancellation of arm license and against the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner by the Commissioner dated 18.11.1998 and 19.6.2000.
The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was granted an arm license in 1993. From the date of license granted in favour of the petitioner it was never misused by the petitioner at any point of time. It appears that on the basis of some complaint, the petitioner received a notice dated 10.7.1997 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar showing the cause as to why the license of the petitioner be not suspended pending inquiry and the petitioner was directed to submit a reply. The charge leveled against the petitioner is that he was involved in various criminal cases. The petitioner submitted a reply and has stated that all the cases except one has been registered against the petitioner prior to the issuance of the license in favour of the petitioner and the competent authority after verifying the aforesaid fact was pleased to grant a license in favour of the petitioner. It has further been stated that the Crime Case no.117 of 1995 under Sections 292 and 384 I.P.C. has been terminated in acquittal. There is no allegation against the petitioner regarding the misuse of the arm license. But the competent authority without considering the reply and evidence on record was pleased to cancel the arm license of the petitioner vide its order dated 18.11.1998. Copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the licensing authority an appeal was filed under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner, the appellate authority. The appellate authority has also rejected the appeal-vide its judgment and order dated 19.6.2000. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the licensing authority exercising the power under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act has not considered the fact that at no point of time the license granted in favour of the petitioner has ever been misused. This fact has also not been considered by the competent authority that the cases which alleged to be the ground for cancellation of license of the petitioner were prior to the grant of license, therefore, that cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of cancellation of the license of the petitioner. Further submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the appellate authority has also not considered the evidence on record and has passed a cryptic order without assigning any reason and has not recorded any finding to this effect that the petitioner has misused the arm at any point of time from the date of grant of license till the date of cancellation. Only reasoning given by the appellate authority is that against the petitioner there were other cases. In all the cases the petitioner has been acquitted as the witnesses in the said cases has become hostile. The petitioner submits that this cannot be ground for cancellation unless and until it is established that the petitioner has misused the arm at any point of time. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that under the provisions of Arms Act there is no power conferred on the authority that in case of acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt or due to the hostile of the witnesses if a person is acquitted that can be the basis for cancellation of the license.
I have heard Sri H.N. Sharma, learned Advocate who appears for the petitioner and the standing counsel on behalf of the respondents and have also perused the record. From the perusal of the record it is clear that both the respondents have not considered the evidence on record to the effect that the petitioner has already been acquitted in five cases which were pending against the petitioner prior to the grant of the license. One case Crime no.117 of 1995 has already been terminated in favour of the petitioner and petitioner has already been acquitted in the said case. No finding by both the authorities have been recorded that the petitioner has misused the fire arm at any point of time or at any time subsequent to the grant of license. From the perusal of the appellate order, it is clear that the appellate order is an order of non-application of mind without assigning any reason. Only certain facts have been stated and on that basis the appeal has been dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid fact, I am of view that the orders passed by respondents no.1 and 2 cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.
The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to respondent no.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of the license and pass a detailed and reasoned order according to law and in view of the observations made above. The decision by respondent no.1 in the matter relating to renewal of the license will be taken by respondent no.1 preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
W.P. 43572 of 2000
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.