Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 728 (UTT)

NARESH KUMAR DHIMAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2012-12-04

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Menka Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner has a valid firearms licence issued by the licencing authority under the Arms Act. The said licence pertains to N.P. Bore Pistol No.12012733. It was renewed from time to time by the licencing authority and, lastly, it was renewed in the year 2001. While the said licenced arms was in the shop of an arms and ammunition dealer, namely, M/s Subhash Chandra, the said shop was sealed by the police authority in the year 2001 in connection with some irregularities with the shop. Since 2001 the petitioner has been persuading the licencing authority to release his firearm as the petitioner has a valid licence for the same. But all in vain. 3. When the said arms was not returned to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.1413 of 2008 (M/S) before this Court, which was disposed of directing the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner for grant of arms. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Haridwar passed the impugned order dated 06.12.2008 rejecting the application of the petitioner for releasing the arms. Feeling aggrieved by this, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the year 2008, the licence of the petitioner’s pistol was renewed and it was valid upto 31.12.2012 and, as a matter of fact, the petitioner did not possess the said arms as it was in the custody of the respondent authority. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the case and submitted that the petitioner has criminal background and there are many criminal cases pending against him for the charges punishable under Section 120B, 195A, 406, 504 & 506 I.P.C. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the criminal case against him and there is no reasonable cause now for the respondent authority to withhold the firearm. Interestingly, the licence of arms, which is presently in the custody of the respondent authority, has already been renewed whereas the renewal of licence is effective till 31.12.2012. Under these circumstances, there is no plausible reason not to release the arms in favour of the petitioner. So the petitioner contends. 6. Interestingly, the licence of arms, which is presently in the custody of the respondent authority, has already been renewed whereas the renewal of licence is effective till 31.12.2012. Under these circumstances, there is no plausible reason not to release the arms in favour of the petitioner. So the petitioner contends. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further argue that since the impugned order is neither for revoking or suspending the licence, the petitioner cannot avail the remedy available under Section 18 of the Arms Act. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances that have been brought on record, it is clear that the said licence is valid and the respondent authority is unreasonable in not releasing the firearm to the petitioner. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 06.12.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar is hereby quashed. The District Magistrate is hereby directed to release the arms in favour of the petitioner. It is clear that the licencing authority shall adopt the due procedure while releasing the firearms in favour of the petitioner in as much as the arms is in a dealer’s shop, which has been seized by the police authority and further that the District Magistrate is at liberty either to suspend or revoke the licence of the petitioner, but if there is material for the same before the District Magistrate. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.