Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 915 (ALL)

Ashish Tripathi v. State of U. P.

2011-04-07

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA

body2011
Bala Krishna Narayana, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made for quashing the orders dated 2.12.2009 and 17.6.2009 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively. 3. Since counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage. 4. According to the petitioner he was holding license of S. B. B. L. Gun. His fire arm license was cancelled by respondent no. 3 vide order dated 17.6.2009 on the ground that the continuance of petitioner's fire arm license was not in public peace and security as the petitioner was involved in two criminal cases namely, Case Crime No. 50 of 2006 under Sections-147, 148, 332, 336, 504 and 506 I. P. C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Case Crime No. 49 of 2006 under Sections-147, 148, 324, 504 and 506 I. P. C. and there was apprehension of misuse of fire arm by the petitioner. Aggrieved therefrom the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 2 which was also dismissed vide order dated 2.12.2009. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 3 committed a patent error of law in cancelling the petitioner's fire arm license merely on the ground that he is involved in two criminal cases although the law is settled that mere involvement of a fire arm licensee in criminal case cannot be made the basis for coming to the conclusion that continuance of his license is not in public peace and security. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the failure of the appellate authority to redeem the illegality committed by the licensing authority has rendered the order of the appellate authority illegal as well. 7. Learned Standing Counsel made his submissions in support of the impugned orders. 8. I have very carefully gone through the impugned orders and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the other materials brought on record. 9. 7. Learned Standing Counsel made his submissions in support of the impugned orders. 8. I have very carefully gone through the impugned orders and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the other materials brought on record. 9. In the impugned order dated 17.6.2009 a reference has been made of the police report dated 11.4.2007 in which it has been stated that the petitioner is involved in two criminal cases namely, Case Crime No. 50 of 2006 under Sections-147, 148, 332, 336, 504 and 506 I. P. C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Case Crime No. 49 of 2006 under Sections-147, 148, 324, 504 and 506 I. P. C. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has not been convicted in any of the cases. In the impugned order dated 17.6.2009 the main thrust appears to be on the pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner, which has led to the cancellation of his fire arm license. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance upon Sheo Prasad Misra Versus District Magistrate, Basti reported in 1978 AWC 122 : 1979 (16) ACC 6 (Sum) wherein it has been held that mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis for cancelling the license. 11. A perusal of the order passed dated 2.12.2009 by the appellate authority shows that the appellate authority has failed to examine the aforesaid legal aspect of the matter and illegally proceeded to dismiss the appeal. 12. In my opinion, mere involvement of a licensee in criminal case cannot be made the basis for forming an opinion that continuance of fire arm license of such licensee is not in public peace and security and for cancelling his fire arm license under the Arms Act. 13. Thus in view of the settled legal position that a fire arm license cannot be made the basis for forming an opinion that continuance of fire arm license of such licensee is not in public peace and security cancelled on the ground of mere involvement of licensee in a criminal case, the impugned orders dated 17.6.2009 and 2.12.2009 passed by respondent nos. 3 and 2 respectively cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. 14. 3 and 2 respectively cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. 14. The writ petition is allowed, impugned orders dated 17.6.2009 and 2.12.2009 passed by respondent nos. 3 and 2 respectively, are quashed. The respondent no. 3 is directed to consider the petitioner's claim for renewal of his fire arm license in accordance with law.