Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1308 (MP)

Rambaran v. State of M. P.

2014-10-10

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, J. 1. The petitioner's arms license was suspended by order dated 02.04.2009. A show cause notice was issued on the same date i.e. 02.04.2009. Petitioner submitted his reply. Another notice dated 02.04.2009 (Annexure P/3) was issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate stating that since certain criminal cases are registered against him, his gun license may be canceled. No other reason is mentioned in the show cause notice. Thereafter by order dated 03.02.2014, petitioner's arms license was cancelled by the District Magistrate. Petitioner preferred appeal Annexure P/6 and stated that license of the petitioner is cancelled on the basis of pendency of certain criminal cases but petitioner has already been exonerated from those cases. Appellate authority rejected the appeal by order dated 12.08.2014. 2. Shri Vishal Singh Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in para 5 of the impugned order the appellate authority recorded the contention of the petitioner that he has been acquitted in the criminal cases but has not assigned any reason as to why such acquittal will not entitle him for restoration of arms license. Criticizing the appellate order, it is submitted that appellate authority has rejected the appeal on extraneous and irrelevant consideration which is not in consonance with the Arms Act. Attention is drawn on last paragraph of the appellate order. 3. Prayer is opposed by Shri N.S. Kirar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Para 5 of the order of appellate authority shows that said authority has recorded contention of the petitioner that he has been exonerated from various criminal cases. However, the effect of such exoneration is not dealt with by the appellate authority. In last para, the appellate authority recorded the following finding:- 6. The operating reason for rejecting the appeal is reproduced above. It cannot be disputed that arms license can be suspended or revoked only in consonance with the relevant parameters flowing from Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959. Section 17(3) of said Act reads as under :- â17(3). In last para, the appellate authority recorded the following finding:- 6. The operating reason for rejecting the appeal is reproduced above. It cannot be disputed that arms license can be suspended or revoked only in consonance with the relevant parameters flowing from Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959. Section 17(3) of said Act reads as under :- â17(3). The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a license for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a license - (a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the license is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a license under this Act; or (b) if the licensing authority deems necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the license; or (c) if the license was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the license or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or (d) if any of the conditions of the license has been contravened; or (e) if the holder of the license has failed to comply with the notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the license. 7. The reproduced portion of appellate order shows that appeal is rejected on irrelevant and foreign consideration. Eligibility of person to get arms license is to be seen at the time when he applied for the same. Admittedly, the arms license was applied by the petitioner and it was granted to him. It was cancelled on the basis of pendency of certain criminal cases. In addition, the District Magistrate cancelled the license of the petitioner on the ground that it was initially granted to the petitioner contrary to Government policy dated 26.03.2011. This finding of District Magistrate is upheld by the appellate authority. In the opinion of this court, decision making process is not in consonance with the principle of natural justice. In the show cause notice, the singular reason shown for cancellation of arms license was based on pendency of criminal cases. This finding of District Magistrate is upheld by the appellate authority. In the opinion of this court, decision making process is not in consonance with the principle of natural justice. In the show cause notice, the singular reason shown for cancellation of arms license was based on pendency of criminal cases. There is no averment in the show cause notice dated 02.04.2009 regarding ineligibility of the petitioner to get arms license. This is settled in law that no coercive action can be taken against the petitioner which is beyond the scope of show cause notice. In other words, no adverse order can be passed on a ground which was not subject matter of show cause notice. Appellate authority has mechanically upheld the said order. The impugned order further shows that no findings/reasons are given by the appellate authority on the specific stand of the petitioner that the criminal cases (registration of which became reason for cancellation of license) are decided in his favour and he stood acquitted from those cases. Reasons are heartbeat of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot be permitted to stand [See : Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, : (2010) 9 SCC 496]. 8. Resultantly, appellate order cannot be permitted to stand. It is set aside. Matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to deal with the grounds taken by the petitioner in his appeal, particularly ground relating to his acquittal from the criminal cases. It is made clear that reproduced portion of appellate order above cannot be a reason for rejecting the petitioner's appeal. Appellate authority shall rehear the parties and pass orders in accordance with law within thirty days. If District Magistrate intends to proceed against the petitioner in the matter of cancellation of arms license on the ground that license was given contrary to policy dated 26.03.2011, it will be open to the said authority to issue show cause notice to the petitioner on this aspect and then proceed in accordance with law 9. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.