MOHD. QASIM v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE — 1999 DIGILAW 1503 (ALL)

I. M. QUDDUSI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 2 ) NECESSARY facts draped in brevity are that the petitioner was given a notice by the District magistrate. Sultanpur, the licensing authority which had issued fire arm licences to the petitioner to show cause as to why his licences may not be cancelled as two criminal cases being Case crime No. 96 of 1985 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 384. 341 and 211, I. P. C. P. S. Bewana, ambedkar Nagar and Case Crime No. 49 of 1998 of P. S. Dostpur, district Sultanpur under sections 307, 452, 504, 506, I. P. C. have been registered against him. This notice was issued on 22. 4. 1998 by the licensing authority, Sultanpur, in exercise of powers under the Arms Act. The petitioner submitted reply to the showcause notice. In the meantime, another notice was issued on 11. 5. 1999 by the licensing authority (District Magistrate), Ambedkar Nagar, against the petitioner to showcause as to why his fire arm licences may not be cancelled due to registration of aforesaid two criminal cases against him. The petitioner has submitted reply to earlier show cause notice dated 22. 4. 1998 as indicated above and thereafter an order was passed by the licensing authority, Sultanpur on 22. 6. 1999 in which it was held that the licensing authority was satisfied as it could not be proved that there is danger to public in case, the petitioner keeps his firearms with him or in case the same are continued to be possessed by the petitioner and as such, the show cause notice dated 22. 4. 1998 was recalled. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply to the licensing authority, Ambedkar Nagar on 25. 6. 1999 with reference to his notice dated 11. 5. 1999 in which he had informed that the licensing authority. Sultanpur, has exonerated him. But the licensing authority, Ambedkar Nagar, rejected the plea of the petitioner by holding that the Court of Additional District Magistrate. Sultanpur is not superior to the Court of District magistrate. Ambedkar Nagar and cancelled the firearm licences of the petitioner vide order dated 23. 7. 1999 in Case No. 19 of 1999. It is this order which has been challenged by means of the present writ petition. Sultanpur is not superior to the Court of District magistrate. Ambedkar Nagar and cancelled the firearm licences of the petitioner vide order dated 23. 7. 1999 in Case No. 19 of 1999. It is this order which has been challenged by means of the present writ petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the copy of judgment and order dated 24. 5,1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate. Faizabad in Criminal case No. 2862 of 1990, State v. Mohd. Qasim and others, in which the petitioner was discharged/acquitted of the criminal charges levelled against him in pursuance of the Case Crime no. 96 of 1985 pertaining to police station Bewana. Ambedkar Nagar under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 384, 341 and 211. l. P. C. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has urged that the licensing authority who was the additional District Magistrate, Sultanpur, had exonerated him, hence there was no occasion for the licensing authority, Ambedkar Nagar to cancel the firearm licenses of the petitioner on the same and similar ground for which he has been exonerated by the licensing authority, Sultanpur. The licensing authority, Ambedkar Nagar, has cancelled the firearm licenses of the petitioner by the impugned order holding that the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Sultanpur, is not superior to the Court of District Magistrate. Ambedkar Nagar, but he has forgotten that under the arms Act, it is not a matter of consideration that which Court is superior but the thing for consideration is that the licensing authority, Sultanpur. had passed the order in exercise of powers conferred under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 and another licensing authority, ambedkar Nagar, was considering the matter on the same ground on which other licensing authority (i. e. licensing authority, Sultanpur) had exonerated him and there is no question of superiority or inferiority either of designation or of rank between one licensing authority and the other licensing authority. ( 5 ) LEARNED standing counsel has argued that if the licence has been issued from one district or place by licensing authority of that district, that licence can be cancelled by the licensing authority of the other district or place where the licensee/ person concerned resides. ( 5 ) LEARNED standing counsel has argued that if the licence has been issued from one district or place by licensing authority of that district, that licence can be cancelled by the licensing authority of the other district or place where the licensee/ person concerned resides. He has placed reliance on the case law laid down in Bhishm Deo v. Commissioner, Jhansi Division and another, 1982 All JJ 1232, in which it has been held that it is clear from Sections 3, 2 (f) and 2 (d) of the Act and Rules 2 (f) and 20 of the Rules that every District Magistrate throughout the indian Union is a licensing authority under the Arms Act. Every licensing authority under section 17 (3) is empowered to revoke a licence. Article the before the word licensing authority in Section 17 (3) had to be used in a grammatical sense at the commencement of the section, the does not indicate that revocation ought to be by licensing authority who had granted licence. One of the cannons of the Interpretation of the statute is that it has to be seen as it is and the question of harmonious construction does not arise unless there is some contradictory indication. There is nothing in the Act or in the Rules which would indicate that the power to revoke lay only in the licensing authority who had originally issued or granted the licence. The contention that in case a licensee who is residing in another district cannot be dealt with under Section 17 (3) but only under Sections 19 to 24 is not correct. So also, Rules 52 and 54 of the Rules have nothing to do with revocation. They pertain to grant of original licence and its renewal respectively. The contention that the arms licence could only be cancelled or revoked by the authority which originally granted the licence is wholly untenable. Reliance has also been placed on the case in Bharat Lal Singh v. District Magistrate, Banda and another. 1986 AWC 1003, in which it has been held that it is nowhere said in Section 17 of the Arms Act that it is only the licensing authority which granted licence Initially can take action under Section 17 of the Act. Any licensing authority as defined under the Arms Act is competent to take action under section 17 of the Arms Act. Any licensing authority as defined under the Arms Act is competent to take action under section 17 of the Arms Act. ( 6 ) NO doubt the word "licensing authority" is defined in Section 2 (fl of the Arms Act has wide scope. It means an officer or authority empowered to grant/renew licenses under the rules made under the Act, and includes, the Government and licence issued from one place by the, licensing authority of that area can be renewed by the licensing authority of another area where the licensee resides or residing at the relevant point of time, but here the matter of consideration is whether parallel action can be taken by two licensing authorities simultaneously for the same allegation under Section 17 of the Arms Act. Section 17 of the Arms Act is reproduced below ; 17. Variation, suspension and relocation of licences.-- (1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice. (2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed. (2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed. (3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such periods as it thinks fit or revoke a licence : (a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act ; or (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence ; or (c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it : or (d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened ; or (e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver up the licence. (4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof. (5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons thereof and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement. (6) The authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate may by order in writing suspend or revoke a licence on any ground on which it may be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority ; and the foregoing provisions of this section, shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority. (7) A Court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence : Provided that if the conviction is set aside on an appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void. (8) An order of suspension or revocation under sub-section (7) may also be made by an appellate court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision. (9) The Central Government may, by order in the official Gazette, suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any licences granted under this Act throughout India or any part thereof. (10) On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation. ( 7 ) THE licensing authority of one area cannot be said to be inferior to the licensing authority of another area irrespective of the fact whether licensing authority of one area is inferior in rank or designation to the licensing authority of another area. The powers under the Arms Act given to the licensing authorities are in respect of grant of licence, cancellation, suspension, revocation and renewal which are equally exercised by all the licensing authorities in the State and in view of this, if a licence has been granted by the licensing authority of an area, the same may be revoked, suspended or renewed or cancelled by the licensing authority of another area. Side by side, if the licensing authority which had issued original licence initially, takes action against the licensee and issues notice in accordance with law, with the same allegations, the other licensing authority should not have Initiated parallel proceedings like the case in hand. Side by side, if the licensing authority which had issued original licence initially, takes action against the licensee and issues notice in accordance with law, with the same allegations, the other licensing authority should not have Initiated parallel proceedings like the case in hand. The licensing authority, Ambedkar Nagar should refrain himself from taking such action as in case, under the law, it will be kept open for the licensing authorities to take parallel action in their areas, then in that case the licensee against whom a notice is issued with certain allegation by a licensing authority which issued original licence visits different places or resides at different place then, in that case, every licensing authority of the area where the licensee visits or resides would be able to initiate proceedings with the same allegations on which basis a notice was already issued by the licensing authority who originally granted a licence and thus, it would be multiplicity of action/proceedings, which is not warranted under the law. The provisions of Arms Act do not permit for issuing/initiating several proceedings by different licensing authorities with the same allegation and with the same set of circumstances. The intention of the Legislature while framing section 17 of the Arms Act is that the licensing authority may initiate proceedings but "licensing authority" does not denote "licensing authorities" at one time. It is however, permitted to take action in accordance with law by the different licensing authorities with different allegations under whose area the licensee resides or visits. In this regard, provisions of Rule 54 (2) of the arms Rules are relevant which are quoted herein below : "rule 54 (2 ).--The authority issuing a licence shall ordinarily be responsible for watching all future renewals of the licence. Where a licence is renewed by an authority other than the authority who granted it, the former shall forthwith inform the latter of the fact of renewal and the period for which such renewal is valid. The applicant for the renewal of a licence under this rule shall always be required to state his permanent residence, and. If he notifies a change in his permanent residence to the district in which the renewal is sought, the licensing authority of such district shall hence forward become responsible for watching all future renewals of his licence and shall inform the original Issuing authority accordingly. If he notifies a change in his permanent residence to the district in which the renewal is sought, the licensing authority of such district shall hence forward become responsible for watching all future renewals of his licence and shall inform the original Issuing authority accordingly. The procedure shall be repeated on each subsequent occasion of renewal of the licence, the necessary intimation being sent by the renewing authority to the original permanent change of residence, as the case may be". ( 8 ) A perusal of the above provision shows that the intention of the Legislature that in fact the authority Issuing a licence shall ordinarily be responsible for watching all future renewal of the licence. In view of this, it cannot be ruled out that if the licensing authority which issued the licence to a licensee has preference in taking action over the licensing authorities of other areas where the licensee resides for the time being. Hence, in the instant matter, once proceedings were initiated by the licensing authority who Issued the licences to the petitioner viz. , the licensing authority, Sultanpur and also passed orders, the other licensing authority, viz. , the licensing authority. Ambedkar Nagar, should not have proceeded against the petitioner on the same set of facts. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 31. 8. 1999 passed by the District Magistrate (licensing authority), Ambedkar Nagar, contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition is quashed and the order dated 22. 4. 1999 passed by the licensing authority, Sultanpur, is upheld. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude any authority to initiate any action against the petitioner which is required under the law. .