Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1481 (ALL)

PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-07-06

A.P.SAHI

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner’s fire-arms licence for a Revolver has been cancelled and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had obtained the licence by providing a wrong address and secondly his brother Dinesh Singh, being an anti social element, the petitioner’s fire-arms licence does not deserve to be continued. 2. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice and he submitted a reply to the same. The charge that principally appears to have been levelled against the petitioner is that that he was a resident of village Sarai Mita whereas he has obtained the fire-arms licence for the Revolver on the address of his in-laws namely 116/38, Village Rawatpur, Police Station Kalyanpur, District - Kanpur Nagar. It has further been indicated in the impugned order that not only this, the petitioner has disclosed his third address at 365-A, Avas Vikas Hanspuram, Police Station Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar and, therefore, the conclusion drawn is that the fire-arms licence obtained at the address of in-laws is a misinterpretation of the correct address of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner submitted a reply to the same contending that since the petitioner’s wife has inherited property at her parents’ place, therefore, the petitioner was residing with his wife at village Rawatpur and it is from there that he has also been granted a licence for a single barrel 12 bore gun. The petitioner also further clarified that he has an additional residence in the city of Kanpur and, therefore, there was no concealment or misrepresentation on his part. 4. So far his relations with his brother are concerned, the petitioner has already severed his relations with him and had notified the same also through a newspaper publication dated 2.5.2000. The petitioner further contended that there was no evidence of his involvement in any unlawful activity or his association with his brother nor there was any complaint of any kind whatsoever to dis-entitle him to retain the licence of the Revolver. 5. Learned counsel further submits that not only this, there was no evidence of any misuse of the licence or the fire-arms itself for any subversive purpose and, as such, there was not even a remote ground available for cancellation of the fire-arms licence. 6. 5. Learned counsel further submits that not only this, there was no evidence of any misuse of the licence or the fire-arms itself for any subversive purpose and, as such, there was not even a remote ground available for cancellation of the fire-arms licence. 6. The impugned order indicates that the licence has been cancelled on the alleged ground of an incorrect address having been given by the petitioner as also the possibility of abetting and sheltering his brother Dinesh Singh in his unlawful activities. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed to which a rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed today bringing on record the fire-arms licence of a single barrel gun on the same address as the licence for the Revolver. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, the fire-arms licence can be cancelled on cogent reasons and any material which may be found so as to declare the licence holder to be unfit to retain the licence. The provisions of Section 17 of the Arms Act gives a discretion to the licensing authority to modify or cancel a licence, in the event such grounds are available that may disentitle the licence holder from retaining the licence any further. 9. The facts as disclosed and indicated in the impugned order do not in any way establish that the petitioner was involved in any unlawful activity or the retention of his fire-arms was detrimental to the peace and tranquillity of the society or maintenance of law and order. The issue relating to the address of the petitioner has been misconstrued by the licensing authority as well as by the appellate authority inasmuch as, it is now clear from record that the petitioner had been earlier granted a licence for a single barrel gun on the address of village Rawatpur. The petitioner also has a residence in Kanpur city as well and if the said address was not disclosed, the same would not amount any misrepresentation inasmuch as the petitioner’s police inquiry and his identity have been verified by the police at the time of the grant of licence. In such a situation, the identity of the individual namely the petitioner and his character and antecedents not being in any doubt, the said allegations of a wrong address against the petitioner were absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of cancelling his fire-arms licence. In such a situation, the identity of the individual namely the petitioner and his character and antecedents not being in any doubt, the said allegations of a wrong address against the petitioner were absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of cancelling his fire-arms licence. The petitioner has not disclosed a wrong address. On the contrary he has applied with an address where he mostly resides. There is no adverse police report to that effect. He had been earlier granted a licence on the same address for another fire-arms. 10. So far as the association of the petitioner with his brother is concerned, the same, in the opinion of the Court, has been satisfactorily explained and the fire-arms licence has been cancelled only on a mere apprehension. Section 17 of the Act does contemplate the existence of any remote apprehension without there being any material to substantiate the same. In the circumstances for the reasons herein above, the impugned orders are unsustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 16.6.2006 passed by Respondent No. 2 and the appellate order dated 20.11.2006 passed by Commissioner are hereby quashed. It is hereby directed that the fire-arms licence of the petitioner shall be restored within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him provided that there is no other adverse material or order against the petitioner apart from the facts narrated hereinabove. ——————