Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 105 (ALL)

Laddan Khan v. Commissioner Lko Division Lucknow

2017-01-09

ANIL KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J. Heard Mohd. Abid Ali, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that an arm licence has been granted to the petitioner for revolver N.P. Bore Revolver No. F.G. - 24597 by the Licensing Authority/District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri. 3. On 04.06.2010 a show cause notice issued to the petitioner that criminal cases are pending against him, as there is a breach of pubic peace, so why his licence should not be canceled. 4. Petitioner submitted reply on 07.08.2013 and after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and material document on record by order dated 05.12.2014 arm licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that criminal cases are pending against him. 5. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner filed an appeal before Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, the same was dismissed by order dated 16.10.2015. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order of cancellation dated 05.12.2014 passed by respondent No. 2 and appellate order dated 16.10.2015 passed by respondent No. 1 by which petitioner's appeal has been dismissed are on the sole ground that of pendency of criminal cases against him is apprehension of abuse of arms are not sufficient grounds under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act 1959, so the impugned orders are non-est and contrary to law, liable to be set aside. 7. Learned State counsel submits that five criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, so keeping in view abovesaid facts, District Magistrate has cancelled the petitioner's arms licence by order dated 05.12.2014 and the same has been upheld by the appellate order. In this regard he has place reliance on the order passed by appellate authority and drawn attention of this Court that the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal has categorically taken into consideration that 5 criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, so it is not public interest that the petitioner should held an arms licence. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 9. The core question which is to be considered in the present case is that on mere pendency of the criminal cases, arms licence of the petitioner can be cancelled. 10. This Court in the case of in the case of Mewa Lal @ Kunnu Vs. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 9. The core question which is to be considered in the present case is that on mere pendency of the criminal cases, arms licence of the petitioner can be cancelled. 10. This Court in the case of in the case of Mewa Lal @ Kunnu Vs. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and another, 2014 (32) LCD 576, after placing reliance on various judgments held as under: - "15. Further, in the case of Hiramani Singh vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in 2011(29)LCD 829 it has been held that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of fire arm license. The relevant para 8 reads as under: 8. This Court in the case of Ashok Rao vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2010 (68) accused applicants. 441 while considering the authority to be exercised under section 17 of the Indian Arms Act has taken the view that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be ground for cancellation of fire arm license unless and until finding is returned by the authority concerned that possession of fire arm has the tendency of threatening public peace and public safety. 16. In the case of Rajendra Singh vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and others, reported in 2011 (29) LCD 1041 Public Peace' or 'Public Safety' has been defined. The relevant paras 6 & 7 read as under: 6. 'Public peace' or 'public safety' do not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order public safety means safety of the public at large and not safety of few persons only. Before passing of the order in exercise of power conferred under Section 17(3) of the Act the Licensing Authority is under an obligation to apply his mind to the question as to whether there was eminent danger to public peace and safety involved in the case. 11. Before passing of the order in exercise of power conferred under Section 17(3) of the Act the Licensing Authority is under an obligation to apply his mind to the question as to whether there was eminent danger to public peace and safety involved in the case. 11. In view of the abovesaid facts, no doubt criminal cases are pending against the petitioner but on mere pendency of his criminal cases, arms licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled by the District Magistrate because, it is well settled in law that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of abuse of arms act are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of revocation of licence under Section 17 (3) of the Act, so by mere involvement in a criminal case cannot be a ground that there is a breach of public peace as taken by the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority cancelling the petitioner's arms licence (See. Habib Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2002 ACC 783). 12. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 05.12.2014 passed by respondent No. 2 and appellate order dated 16.10.2015 passed by respondent No. 1are quashed and arms licence of the petitioner is restored.