Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 159 (MP)

Rajbahadur Singh v. State of M. P.

2009-02-02

SANJAY YADAV

body2009
ORDER 1. Validity of orders passed on 17.9.2007, 27.5.2008 and 3.9.2008 are called in question in present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. By order passed on 17.9.2007, the gun licence of the petitioner was revoked, whereas by order passed on 27.5.2008, appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and by order dated 3.9.2008 Second Appeal preferred by petitioner was dismissed being not maintainable. 2. The petitioner was the holder of arms licence No. MPC HP/STE/ 3.1.2003 granted to him under the provisions of Arms Act, 1959. While he was holding the licence, a report was furnished by the Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur on 8.12.2004 to District Magistrate Chhatarpur/ Licensing Authority, recommending therein the revocation of gun licence because of the involvement of petitioner in number of criminal cases, viz., Crime No. 71/82 under section 302 IPC, Crime No. 83/02 under section 25/27, Arms Act, Crime No. 64/87, sections 302,404,147,148, 159, 130-B, IPC, read with section 25/27, Arms Act, Crime No. 186/3 under sections 147, 149, 294, 506, 336 IPC, Crime No. 48/04 under sections 294, 323, 506-B, 336, 34, IPC, Ishtgash No. 73/07 sections 107, 116 (3), Ishtgasa No. 9/04, sections 151, 107, 116 (3), Ishtgasa No. 62/ 03, sections 107, 116 (3), Ishtgasa No. 244/03, sections 107, 116 (3) and Ishtgasa No. 104/04, sections 107, 116 (3). 3. A show-cause notice on 24.12.2004 was issued by the Licensing Authority, Chhatarpur whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the licence be not cancelled. The District Magistrate after taking into consideration the number of offences, the petitioner is involved in and the fact that there was no denial by the petitioner of the said offences, revoked the licence in exercise of its power under section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959. The said order was affirmed in appeal and the second appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected being not maintainable. 4. The petitioner questions the order of revocation on the ground of its being arbitrary and passed in abuse of the powers under section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959. It is urged that the Licensing Authority, arbitrarily rejected the subsequent report furnished by respondent No.3 recommending therein non-revocation of the licence. It is contended that the petitioner was acquitted of the offence under section 302, IPC and this fact is not taken into consideration by the Licensing Authority. 5. It is urged that the Licensing Authority, arbitrarily rejected the subsequent report furnished by respondent No.3 recommending therein non-revocation of the licence. It is contended that the petitioner was acquitted of the offence under section 302, IPC and this fact is not taken into consideration by the Licensing Authority. 5. Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 empowers the Licensing Authority to vary, suspend or even revoke the licence. Sub-section (3) of section 17 stipulates: "(3) The licensing Authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period 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 any 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 reasons 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 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; for (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." 6. The question is whether in given facts of the case at hand the Licensing Authority was within his right to have revoked the licence held by the petitioner. Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 17 stipulates that if the Licensing Authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety, to revoke the licence. Thus, the security of public peace or the public safety is paramount consideration for exercise of power of revocation. The parameter which would justify exercise of discretion under section 17 (3) (b) of the Act of 1959 is the sufficiency of material available and the degree of danger to the security of public peace and public safety. Thus, the security of public peace or the public safety is paramount consideration for exercise of power of revocation. The parameter which would justify exercise of discretion under section 17 (3) (b) of the Act of 1959 is the sufficiency of material available and the degree of danger to the security of public peace and public safety. The discretionary powers as conferred upon the Licensing Authority under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 17_of Arms Act, 1959 must be exercised fairly and bona fide. In respect of exercise of discretionary power, it was observed by Their Lordships in Clariant International Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, AIR 2004 SC 4236 , in Paragraph 26 that, "the discretionary jurisdiction has to be exercised keeping in view the reasons for granting such wide discretion must be exercised within the four corners of the Slate". The power of revocation under section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 has to be exercised in wider public interest and to ensure security to public peace. This power is in contradistinction to the powers exercised under section 13 for grant of licence, the scope of enquiry wherein and the exercise of discretion is less peripheral than under section 17 (3) (b). 7. The case at hand reveals, cases being registered against the petitioner under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and also the Arms Act, 1959, which are sufficient an indicator that the security to public peace and public safety are at peril. The Licensing Authority was thus well within his right in revoking the licence of the petitioner. 8. In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.