Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1025 (ALL)

SANJAY AGRAWAL v. STATE OF U P

2009-04-01

SHISHIR KUMAR

body2009
( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 25. 8. 2006 passed by appellate authority, Annexure--5 to the writ petition and dated 20. 6. 2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Annexure 4 to the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner who was a licensee of a revolver, his licence was cancelled on the ground that his wife and son have purchased a property and have not paid requisite stamp duty and when the Collection Amin visits the house of the petitioner to collect the said amount, the mother and the son of the petitioner threatens the Amin as well as the other officers, who visit for the purpose of realisation of deficient stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 13,89,000/ -. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint by the officials, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner showing therein that under these circumstances why the license of the petitioner be not cancelled. This order was passed on 22. 8. 2005. The petitioner submitted a reply and denied the allegations made in the show cause notice. But in spite of the aforesaid fact the license of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 20. 6. 2006. A true copy of the same has been annexed by the petitioner as annexure- 4 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed an appeal and that appeal too has been dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner for misuse of the fire-arm, therefore, it does not come under the violation of Section 17 of the Arms Act. There is no document to show that the petitioner has ever threatened the employees of the District Administration who visit petitioners house for the purpose of realisation of the stamp duty. Further submission has been made that a proceeding for realisation of deficient stamp duty was pending and a final order dated 13. 11. 2006 has been passed. A copy of the same has been filed with the rejoinder affidavit by which a final adjudication has been made and the petitioners liability to pay deficient stamp duty is to the tune of Rs. 68,500/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- as well as interest at the rate of 1. 11. 2006 has been passed. A copy of the same has been filed with the rejoinder affidavit by which a final adjudication has been made and the petitioners liability to pay deficient stamp duty is to the tune of Rs. 68,500/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- as well as interest at the rate of 1. 5% per month from 14. 11. 2003 till the date of payment. The petitioner submits that the total amount as calculated comes to the tune of Rs. 1,16,600/- which has already been deposited by the petitioner on 17. 11. 2006. A copy of the same has been filed with the rejoinder affidavit as annexure- 2. In view of the aforesaid fact learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now there is no occasion for maintaining the order of cancellation as it has never been proved by the respondent that the license of the petitioner has ever been misused either by the petitioner or by the family members of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE learned standing counsel who files a counter affidavit is also not in a position to rebut such allegations made by the petitioner and has not doubted that petitioner has not deposited the amount as alleged in the rejoinder affidavit. The learned standing counsel is also not in a position to submit that whether in such circumstances as stated in the order impugned, the license of the petitioner can be cancelled treating it to be in contravention of Section 17 of the Act. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, I am of the view that only on the basis of the allegations and the complaint made by the Amin and other officers, the license of the petitioner has been cancelled. There is no charge against the petitioner that the fire-arm license or fire-arm has ever been misused by the petitioner. Further more the amount which was due to the petitioner as deficient stamp duty, has also been paid. ( 6 ) IN my opinion the act as alleged by the respondent does not come under the violation of Section 17 of the Act. Further more the amount which was due to the petitioner as deficient stamp duty, has also been paid. ( 6 ) IN my opinion the act as alleged by the respondent does not come under the violation of Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, the Licensing Authority was having no jurisdiction to suspend or cancel the license unless and until it is established on the basis of relevant record that the licensee has ever misused it or has done ant act in contravention of the conditions of the licence. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 25. 8. 2006 passed by appellate authority, Annexure- 5 to the writ petition and dated 20. 6. 2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Annexure- 4 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. The respondent Licensing Authority i. e. District Magistrate, Jalaun is directed to restore the license of the petitioner forthwith and to return the fire-arm immediately without any further delay. No order is passed as to cost. .