Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 178 (ALL)

BHUPENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-01-21

SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2009
JUDGMENT Honble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—The petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition challenging the order dated 14.9.2007 passed by respondent No. 2 nearly after the lapse of 16 months without assigning any plausible reasons whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition. 2. Petitioners fire-arm licence was cancelled vide order dated 9.8.2007 against which an appeal was preferred on 3.9.2007 and the respondent No. 3 while admitting the appeal refused the prayer for staying the order dated 9.8.2007 cancelling the fire-arm licence of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had clean antecedents and was never involved in any criminal case. However, rival political parties on account of enmity got the proceedings initiated under Section 107/116 of Cr.P.C. Which were later on dropped and has also placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court in the case of Mohd. Haroon v. District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, 2003 (Suppl) ACC 759 and Ashok Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (55) ACC 183. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 5. It is admitted to the petitioner that the appeal against the order dated 14.9.2007 cancelling the licence of his fire-arm is pending before the respondent No. 2 since 2007 and till date no final order has been passed. Despite the impugned order dated 14.9.2007, passed around 16 months back, the petitioner did not show any sense of urgency in challenging the said order. There was no justification for the petitioner to have waited for such a long time. As noticed earlier the appeal is already pending before the respondent No. 3 for final adjudication, therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the matter after such a long delay. 6. The cases of Mohd. Haroon v. District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar (supra) and Ashok Singh v. State of U.P. and others (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner have no bearing on the case in hand. In the said case writ petition was filed against the final order passed by the Appellate Authority but in the present case the appeal is still pending for final adjudication and the impugnedc order refusing interim relief was passed around 16 months back, therefore, the reliance upon the aforesaid judgments by the petitioner, in my opinion is misplaced. 7. In the said case writ petition was filed against the final order passed by the Appellate Authority but in the present case the appeal is still pending for final adjudication and the impugnedc order refusing interim relief was passed around 16 months back, therefore, the reliance upon the aforesaid judgments by the petitioner, in my opinion is misplaced. 7. Yet, there is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. In Para 21 of the writ petition it has been mentioned as follows : "That the respondent No. 2 has not still decided the appeal filed by the petitioner even than he is not so interesting, now the impugned orders passed by the respondents have come into knowledge to the SHO concerned who has also making a pressure to deposit the fire-arms.The petitioner also received knowledge on 11.8.2008 that Sri Satendra Bhushan Singh also obtained stay order dated 25.10.2007 passed by this Honble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52126 of 2007 so the petitioner also came to seek the same remedy by this Honble Court." 8. Besides this, learned counsel for the petitioner has also admitted that the petitioner has not yet deposited his fire-arm with the concerned authority, despite the cancellation order passed on 9.8.2007. The Section 21 of the Arms Act provides as follows : "21. (1) Any person having in his possession any arms or ammunition the possession whereof has, in consequence of the expiration of the duration of a licence or of the suspension or revocation of a licence or by the issue of a notification under Section 4 or by any reason whatever, ceased to be lawful, shall without unnecessary delay deposit the same either with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, with a licenced dealer or where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armory." 9. Thus, it is clearly evident from the plain reading of the aforesaid section that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to immediately deposit the fire-arm before the concerned authority after the cancellation of his arm licence but the petitioner in utter violation of the provisions of Arms Act is still retaining the fire-arm. 10. Thus, it is clearly evident from the plain reading of the aforesaid section that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to immediately deposit the fire-arm before the concerned authority after the cancellation of his arm licence but the petitioner in utter violation of the provisions of Arms Act is still retaining the fire-arm. 10. At this stage it is useful to refer to the decision of this Court in Ramanand Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and others, 2005(1) JIC 517 (All), wherein this Court observed as follows : "The above provision reveals that for possession or carrying any fire-arm a person has to hold licence. The relevant words in the Section is "he holds in this behalf". The word "holds" denotes having the licence in present time. A person whose licence has been suspended cannot be said to have holding the licence. For example a licence has been granted to a person which could not be renewed after a particular date, can it be said that person still holds licence although it has not been renewed. The answer obviously is "No". Similarly a person whose licence has been suspended cannot be said to hold the licence. The requirement of Section 3 sub-section (1) is that a person shall not have in his possession any fire-arm unless he holds in this behalf a lience. A person whose licence has been suspended cannot have in his possession any fire-arm. When a person cannot have in his possession fire-arm necessarily the authorities have to be conceded a jurisdiction to direct the arm to be deposited. The above scheme is further revealed and made explicit in Section 21 of the Arms Act, 1959. Section 21 specifically provides that a person whose licence has been suspended, his possession of the arm and ammunition ceases to be lawful and he has to deposit the arm either with the Officer in-charge of the nearest Police Station or subject to other condition as may be prescribed with a licence dealer. 11. If that be so, then one fails to understand under what circumstances the authority concerned have failed to take any action against the petitioner for not depositing the fire-arm despite the fact that his licence already cancelled on 9.8.2007 and his further prayer for staying the order of cancellation was also refused by the respondent No. 2 by order dated 14.9.2007. It is a matter of great concern, regret and deep anguish that the authority concerned is sleeping over the matter and has failed to take any steps for the deposit of fire-arm of the petitioner. 12. In view of the above, respondent No. 3 District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai is directed to ensure the compliance of Section 21 of the Arms Act forthwith in so far as relates to the fire-arm of the petitioner of which the licence has been cancelled on 9.8.2007. 13. All I have said above is sufficient to dismiss the present writ petition. But before parting with the judgment I consider it worthwhile to deal with one aspect of the matter. 14. It has come to the knowledge of this Court that in most of the cases despite the cancellation, suspension and non-renewal of the arm licence, arms are not being deposited by the persons having its possession. This is a matter of great concern, regret and deep anguish that the authorities concerned are sleeping over the matter and are not taking prompt steps for the deposit of such arm. Such inaction and laxity would cause serious law and order problem and expose the citizens to danger and create hazards to the safety and security of the members of the public and frustrate the due process of law. The aforesaid inaction on the part of district authorities warrants intervention by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 15. For the aforementioned reasons I direct the Chief Secretary, U.P. Shasan to ensure compliance of Section 21 of the Arms Act, 1959 and take stern action without any further delay, but strictly in accordance with law against law breakers who despite suspension/revocation/cancellation/non-renewal etc. of their arms licence have failed to deposit their arms before the appropriate authority as provided under Section 21 of the Arms Act. 16. While I am dismissing the present writ petition, but it will be listed again before me after three months. The Chief Secretary, U.P. Government is directed to submit a compliance report within a period of three months before this Court indicating the steps taken by the authorities in pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court. 17. Registrar General is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the Chief Secretary, U.P. Shasan, Lucknow for necessary compliance. 18. The Chief Secretary, U.P. Government is directed to submit a compliance report within a period of three months before this Court indicating the steps taken by the authorities in pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court. 17. Registrar General is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the Chief Secretary, U.P. Shasan, Lucknow for necessary compliance. 18. Let a copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the Chief Standing Counsel for necessary information and compliance. 19. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. ————