Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 689 (ALL)

KRISHNA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-03-22

A.P.SAHI

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri S.D. Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent State representing respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3. Inspite of time having been granted no counter-affidavit on behalf of the State has been filed till date. 2. The present petition arises out of proceedings for cancellation of an Arms licence of the petitioner under which he is in possession of a single barrel 12 bore gun. The show-cause was issued to the petitioner on the ground that he is likely to use the said fire-arms possessed by him to resist the realization of a Co-operative loan. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said show-cause notice and urged that he is prepared to deposit the amount in installments and being a farmer it has become difficult to repay the amount on account of failure of crops. The petitioner also filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 32229 of 2006 against the recovery proceedings which was disposed of with certain directions giving breathing time to deposit the amount that was sought to be recovered. 3. The Collector proceeded to cancel the licence on the presumption that inspite of good Rabi crops having been harvested the petitioner was deliberately not repaying the loan taken by him and as such there is every likely hood of the petitioner of his misusing the firearm possessed by him to threaten officials. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 11.5.2006 is based on a presumption which has no material basis and which can also not be a ground for the cancellation of an Arms licence as provided under the Arms Act. The said cancellation appears to be at the instance of the Co-operative Bank for the purpose of realization of recovery dues for which the petitioner had already filed a writ petition and have been passed in his favour. The petitioner rightly took this ground in his memo of appeal before the learned Commissioner but the Commissioner has ignored the aforesaid aspect and dismissed the appeal. 5. The writ petition has been entertained and an interim order on 29.3.2008 staying the operation of the said order has been passed. 6. The petitioner rightly took this ground in his memo of appeal before the learned Commissioner but the Commissioner has ignored the aforesaid aspect and dismissed the appeal. 5. The writ petition has been entertained and an interim order on 29.3.2008 staying the operation of the said order has been passed. 6. Learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that the petitioner could not have resisted the recovery proceeding and in such circumstances any resistance put forward by the petitioner for the purposes of not making the payment of dues against him, has rightly been taken into account by the Collector for cancellation of the arms licence. 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the impugned order. The only apprehension expressed by the authorities is that the fire-arms is likely to be misused for not making payment of dues which was sought to be recovered. This assumption is erroneous and is based on no material inasmuch as there was no cogent evidence before the Collector to cancel the arms licence of the petitioner. The Collector in order to realize the recovery dues cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that any criminal prosecution was launched or F.I.R. registered against the petitioner. There was further no material to indicate any threat to public peace and tranquillity. The recital in the order of the Commissioner is therefore based on an unsound footing. There is no other accusation of any other incident against the petitioner. 8. On the other hand the petitioner took recourse to law and filed a writ petition in which installments were fixed and he was given breathing time to repay the dues. In such circumstances the petitioner has a reasonable explanation in his favour that was on record and even otherwise the realization of recovery dues cannot be made the basis for cancellation of arms licence of the petitioner. In such circumstances the impugned orders dated 11.5.2006 and 28.9.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur and Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ——————