Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 659 (RAJ)

Chandraveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-05-10

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 15.9.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Banswara, whereby, the arm license in the name of petitioner has been cancelled and order dated 6.9.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected, respectively. 2. The petitioner was granted arm license no. 13/88, which was renewed upto 31.12.2006 and when the application seeking its renewal was filed, the Superintendent of Police, Banswara gave a report that four cases were registered against the petitioner between 1986 to 2001 and out of the said four cases, three cases were decided by way of compromise and one after imposing penalty between the period 13.4.1986 to 5.2.2003. Based on the said report, the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that in view of the criminal cases registered against the petitioner, he is likely to misuse the arm and consequently cancelled the license and directed for deposit of the arm in question. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal. 4. The Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur by the impugned order dated 6.9.2008 came to the conclusion that registering of four criminal cases against the petitioner shows his criminal mentality and, therefore, rejection of his application for renewal of license was justified. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner have passed the orders without conducting proper inquiry and the same have been passed on the basis of suspicion and hypothetical reasoning, the basis for cancellation of license is filing of criminal cases, wherein the petitioner has already been acquitted, though the license was granted and renewed during the time the petitioner was facing trial, which shows non-application of mind by the respondents. 6. Reliance was placed on Khem Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others, 2005 (1) RDD 431 (Raj.) (DB); Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others, 2014 (4) CDR 2476 (Raj.) and Vijendra v. District Collector & Magistrate, Hanumangarh & Another, 2015 (3) CDR 1210 (Raj.). 7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court and that acquittal of the petitioner is of no consequence and the cancellation was necessary for the security, public peace and for public safety and the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the circumstances of the case, be not exercised. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. A bare look at the orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner reveals that the arm license was issued to the petitioner after one case, which was registered as case no. 44/86 had already been compromised on 14.3.1986 and thereafter, continued to be renewed during the period when other cases were registered and settled on 3.4.2000, 14.1.002 and 5.2.2003, respectively, and after the license was last renewed in 2003 upto 2006, there is apparently no incident so as to require now taking a view based on already settled cases during which the petitioner was in possession of license for the arm in question and, therefore, apparently, no case for denial of renewal of license was made out on the grounds which have been indicated in the orders impugned. 10. This Court in the case of Gurdev Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others, Civil Writ Petition No. 1789/2009, decided on 7.7.2014, even in the case, where the criminal case was pending, placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Khem Singh (supra), came to the conclusion that pendency of criminal case against an incumbent is not a ground for cancellation of arms licence under Section 17 (3)(b) of the Act and as in the case of Gurdev Singh (supra) the petitioner had been acquitted in criminal case and there was no allegation that renewal of licence can cause any harm to the public peace or public safety, both the orders were set aside. 11. Further in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra) and Vijendra (supra) relying on judgment of this Court in State & Others v. Sahab Ram, 2011 WLC (Raj.) (UC) 230, the similar orders, which were passed by the authorities below, were set aside. 11. Further in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra) and Vijendra (supra) relying on judgment of this Court in State & Others v. Sahab Ram, 2011 WLC (Raj.) (UC) 230, the similar orders, which were passed by the authorities below, were set aside. From the above, it is apparent that when the renewal was being considered in the year 2007, there was essentially no material between the period of last renewal to the date of consideration indicating the conduct of the petitioner which can be said to be not conducive to public peace or public safety and the orders have been passed mechanically without considering any aspect and repeated renewal during all these years after the first case was registered and compromised and other cases were going on against the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted based on compromise cannot be taken into consideration and, therefore, both the orders impugned cannot be sustained. 12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate, Banswara and Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur are set aside. The District Magistrate, Banswara is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for arm license no. 13/88, the consideration may be made within four weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.