Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 894 (PAT)

RAJDEO SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR

2011-04-29

V.N.SINHA

body2011
ORDER : Counsel for the petitioner is directed to correct the averments made in the writ petition in regard to his D.B.B.L. Gun licence number. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 3. In compliance of the ORDER :of the High Court dated 23.01.2009 petitioner has furnished copy of the notice bearing Letter No. 147 dated 15.02.2005 along with the copy of the receipt dated 09.03.2005 showing deposit of his D.B.B.L. gun with Pali Gun House. Aforesaid notice dated 15.02.2005 and the receipt dated 09.03.2005 are taken on record. 4. Petitioner was the holder of D.B.B.L. Gun Licence No. 24/82 which was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Siwan under ORDER :bearing No. 228 dated 20.02.2005, Annexure-3 which has been challenged in this petition. He is also aggrieved by the ORDER :dated 10.02.2006 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Saran in Arms Appeal No. 47/04-05, Annexure-5, whereunder the appeal filed against the ORDER :dated 20.02.2005 has been dismissed. It appears prior to the cancellation of the D.B.B.L. gun licence of the petitioner he was served with a notice under Section 17 of the Arms Act bearing no. 147 dated 15.02.2005 calling upon him to show-cause as to why his licence be not cancelled as he was likely to misuse the gun during the 2005 State Assembly Election. Petitioner having received the notice submitted before the District Magistrate that he being a law abiding citizen has never misused his gun but only on the likely apprehension that petitioner may misuse the gun in future his licence has been cancelled by the District Magistrate under ORDER :dated 20.02.2005, Annexure-3. ORDER :cancelling the licence of the petitioner, however, indicates that Licensing Authority has not given any reason as to why he is cancelling the licence of the petitioner. The appellate authority, Divisional Commissioner under ORDER :s dated 10.02.2006, Annexure-5 while upholding the ORDER :of the District Magistrate has also not given any specific instance of misuse of the gun by the petitioner but has yet upheld the ORDER :passed by the Collector. 5. Petitioner having not misused his gun licence ever there was no occasion for the authorities to have cancelled his licence. In the circumstances, the impugned ORDER :dated 20.02.2005, Annexure-3 as also the appellate ORDER :dated 10.02.2006, Annexure-5 is quashed. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.