Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 176 (PAT)

Rajdhani Arms Ammunition Dealer v. State Of Bihar

2004-02-12

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 12th of August, 2002 passed by the State Government whereby duplicate licence No. 3 of 1991 in Form XII has been cancelled and the petitioner has been directed to deposit all the arms and ammunition in the shop or at nearest Police Station. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner holds licence in Form XI and XII. In the year 1991, it was issued a duplicate licence in Form XII which contained the entry of 5000 cartridges for non-prohibited rifle and 5000 for revolvers and pistols. According to the respondents, petitioner got it interpolated to 25000 and 15000 respectively. Accordingly. a show cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why its licence in Form, XII be not cancelled. Petitioner filed its show cause, inter alia, contending that no interpolation has been made by it and, in fact, the increase in the number of cartridges has been in pursuance of the recommendation of the District Magistrate vide its letter No. 2624 dated 28-8-1990. Petitioner further contended that notwithstanding the increase in the number of cartridges, the petitioner had not dealt with the cartridges more than what was entered in the licence earlier. The Licensing Authority considered the show cause of the petitioner and by the impugned order, cancelled the petitioners licence issued to it in Form XII. 3. Petitioner in paragraph No. 72 of the writ application has stated that it had not purchased more than 10000 cartridges of rifle and 3000 cartridges of revolver and pistol as given in the original licence. 4. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which the aforesaid assertion of the petitioner has not been denied. In the background of the pleading of the parties, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner has not dealt with the cartridges more than what were entered in the licence. 5. Mrs. Seema Ali Khan appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the very assumption of the respondents that petitioner had hand in interpolation in the licence, is unfounded of the fact and as such, the impugned order passed on such assumption, is illegal and fit to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 5. Mrs. Seema Ali Khan appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the very assumption of the respondents that petitioner had hand in interpolation in the licence, is unfounded of the fact and as such, the impugned order passed on such assumption, is illegal and fit to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court dated 7-8-2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4304 of 2002 (Vishwanath Pandey V/s. The State of Bihar) and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment. "In these facts and circumstances, it is very difficult for this Court to agree with the view taken by the Licencing Authority that the unauthorised entries in the licence were in the nature of interpolation, made at the instance of the petitioner and. therefore, the licence was liable to be cancelled. To this Court it appears that the unauthorised entries resulted inadvertently due to some mistake in the office of the Licensing Authority and the petitioner does not deserve to be punished for the same." 6. Mr. Jawahar Dhari Singh, G.P.I., however, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the State Government, finding interpolation in the duplicate licence, has rightly cancelled the same and no fault can be found out in that. 7. Having appreciated the rival submissions. I find substance in the submission of Mrs. Khan. In my opinion, the case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Vishwanath Pandey (supra). To me, it seems that unauthorised entry in the licence was inadvertently made in the office of the Licensing Authority for which no blame could be put on the petitioner. Needless to state that in case, in future, the petitioner breaches the terms and conditions of the licence, respondents shall have authority to proceed against it in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. The impugned order dated 12th of August, 2002 is set aside and the respondents are directed to restore the petitioners licence in Form XII after deleting those portions which are said to have been interpolated within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. No costs.