Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2430 (ALL)

Daya Shanker Singh v. State Of UP

2024-11-28

VIKRAM D.CHAUHAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.08.2021 and 19.02.2022 passed by respondent no. 3 and 2 repsectively. (ii) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent concerned to restore the arm license no. 1097/P11 (DBBL Gun) 23682-2003 issued in favour of the petitioner." 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is having DBBL gun license and a show cause notice was issued for cancellation of the license against which the petitioner has filed his reply dated 09.10.2020 before the District Magistrate, Ghazipur. The District Magistrate, Ghazipur by order dated 18.08.2021 has cancelled the fire arm license of petitioner on the ground that petitioner had purchased 110 bullets from the year 2017 to 2019, however, out of which 37 bullets were used for firing at public place (celebratory firing) and as such the same is the violation of Rule 32 of the ARMS RULES , 2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 18.08.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Ghazipur to submit that as per the aforesaid order a finding has been recorded that the petitioner has informed that 37 bullets were used for firing at public place. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no admission was made by petitioner to the aforesaid effect. Learned counsel for petitioner, in this respect, has relied upon reply which is at page 32 of the paper book to submit that no such admission has been made in the reply submitted by petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that State has relied upon the report of the SHO of the concerned police station which is at page 25 of paper book to submit that in the aforesaid report it has been recorded by the police station concerned that the petitioner has informed that the petitioner has used 37 bullets for firing (celebratory firing) at public place. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid fact as recorded in report dated 21.09.2019 is without any foundation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid fact as recorded in report dated 21.09.2019 is without any foundation. He submits that neither any statement was given to the police station by the petitioner nor there exists any document before the police station or in the report that the petitioner has given any such statement. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the police station concerned could not have on its own recorded absurd finding of misuse of weapon at public place when the place where aforesaid weapon was used has not been defined in the report nor the date has been fixed of the use of the aforesaid weapon. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that even appellate authority has verbatim recorded the findings which were made by District Magistrate Ghazipur. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned orders are bad in law as there is no admission on the part of petitioner that petitioner has used the weapon at a public place for celebratory firing. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the only foundation existing is the admission of petitioner as per the said case as well as report of police station. The report of police station does not indicate as to when the statement of the petitioner was recorded admitting that the petitioner has used the weapon at a public place nor the date and time of use has been stated. He submits that the report is wholly vague in nature and could not have been foundation for proceeding against the petitioner for cancellation of arms license. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both licensing authority and appellate authority in this respect have erred in law. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submits that the order impugned have been rightly passed by the authorities concerned. It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel that the arms license of petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has used arms license at a public place which is in violation of rules 32 of the ARMS RULES 2016. 6. It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel that the arms license of petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has used arms license at a public place which is in violation of rules 32 of the ARMS RULES 2016. 6. On a query being made to the learned Standing Counsel as what is the foundation for the finding that the petitioner has used the arms license at a public place learned Standing Counsel submits that although in the impugned order there is a finding that the petitioner has informed that he has used the weapon at a public place which in turns relies upon the report of the police station dated 21.09.2019 at page 24 of the paper book which records that petitioner has informed the police station that he has used 37 bullets for firing at a public place. 7. On further query being made to the learned Standing Counsel as to how this finding has been recorded when the petitioner in its reply before the licensing authorities has not stated that he has used the said weapon for firing at public place,, learned Standing Counsel could not demonstrate that the aforesaid finding in the police report as well as impugned order is based on any admission on the part of petitioner. To the aforesaid extent the finding recorded by licensing authority and appellate authority are without foundation and authority while cancelling the license is required to record a finding that there is misuse of weapon. In the present case, neither the place where the firing took place has been defined nor the date or time has been defined by the licensing authority or appellate authority. The finding recorded are wholly vague in nature as there is no admission on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner has used the weapon for firing at a public place. 8. No contravention of Rule 32 of the ARMS RULES 2016 has been shown by learned Standing Counsel. The finding recorded are wholly vague in nature as there is no admission on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner has used the weapon for firing at a public place. 8. No contravention of Rule 32 of the ARMS RULES 2016 has been shown by learned Standing Counsel. Learned Standing Counsel further tried to submit that the petitioner bullet case which was found not belong to weapon for which license has been granted, however, neither any expert report has been relied upon by learned Standing Counsel in this respect nor any other material has been shown just recording a finding that the bullet case is not matching with the weapon without there being material to show the same is not acceptable. It is for the licensing authority to show that the weapon for which license was granted could not have used the aforesaid bullet case. No such report of any expert or other material has been shown by State. 9. The foundation for passing the impugned orders of cancellation is only to the effect that the petitioner has used the weapon at public place in contravention of rule 32 of the ARMS RULES , 2016 which is based on the alleged admission on the part of the petitioner. However, such admission is not shown from records as learned Standing Counsel has not been able to demonstrate that the aforesaid finding of admission is made on the basis of any statement of the petitioner. Mere report of the police station without the basis on which such report was prepared is not sustainable in law. 10. Once there is no foundation for passing the impugned orders then the order cancelling the arms license dated 18.08.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur and appellate authority order dated 19.02.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2, Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, are not sustainable under law and as such are hereby set aside and quashed. The arms license of the petitioner is hereby restored and the licensing authority is hereby directed to renew the arms license of petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. 12. The arms license of the petitioner is hereby restored and the licensing authority is hereby directed to renew the arms license of petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. 12. The licensing authority if any other material has been found after the filing of the writ petition against the petitioner would be at liberty to proceed for fresh cancellation in accordance with law.