Ashfaq Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Others

B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 1.7.1999 whereby his firearms licence has been suspended. The case of the petitioner is that he is a bona fide licence-holder of D.B.B.L. Gun. However, he has been falsely implicated in a case relating to Police Station Atrauliya registered as Case Crime No. 101/98. under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, I.P.C. in District Azamgarh.

The contention of the petitioner further is that the Station Officer, Police Station Bilariya Ganj, District Azamgarh submitted a report dated 3.6.1999 recommending cancellation of the firearm licence of the petitioner. Acting upon this report, the respondent. No. 3 S.S.P., Azamgarh also made a recommendation to the respondent No. 2 to cancel the firearm licence of the petitioner.

It is further stated that a show-cause-notice was issued on 1.7.1999 and by the same notice the firearms licence of the petitioner was also suspended.

I have heard Sri J.A. Kazmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The order is being dictated in open Court.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Is that when a show-cause-notice has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was yet to submit his reply to the show-cause-notice, the suspension of the firearms licence could not have been made and such an order would be premature and be held to have been passed without considering the reply of the petitioner to the show-cause-notice.

Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has referred to several decisions of this Court wherein this point has been considered. The first case referred to is of the Full Bench decision in Balram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, wherein the relevant Para 12 reads as follows:

In this connection. another aspect of the matter cannot be lost sight of. Obtaining of a licence for possession. a firearm has to be held a privilege only. No civil consequences follow. Even if we were to hold that civil consequences do follow as it may in proceedings concerning licences issued under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, the security of public peace or public safety would be of paramount importance and if, to protect and preserve the same it appears "necessary", the licensing authority has that power to use, for the power to suspend such a licence is inherent in the power to cancel it. Moreover, a right of objection or representation is available to the licence holder.

Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has relied upon another decision in Kailash Nath and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, wherein in Para 29 what has been held is as follows:

Now remains the second contention of the petitioner''s counsel that mere involvement in the criminal case is not sufficient for suspension of arm licence. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Dharm Vir Singh''s case, 2003 All LJ 1769. In Dharm Vir Singh''s case following was laid down by the learned single Judge.

The District Magistrate in the impugned order dated 14.10.1991 has stated that cancellation of the licence of the petitioner appears necessary in the public interest. Thee is no finding that the revocation of licence was considered necessary for the security of the public peace or public safety. Public interest cannot be equated to term for the security of the public peace or public safety. The case of Sheo Prasad (supra) has been relied in the case of Iftikhar Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and it has been held that involvement in criminal case or pendency of a criminal case'' cannot be a ground for revocation of the licence under he Arms Act. The ratio of Sheo Prasad case (supra) was again affirmed in the case of Hari Kant alias Raja v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2002 (1) JIC 714 (All)''

He has next referred to a judgment in Tale Singh Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, wherein this Court has held as follows:

In view of the Full Bench decisions of this Court the reference of which has been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs which are binding upon this Court, this Court cannot delve into the question that no order suspending the arms licence can be passed for the period pending enquiry inasmuch as the Full Bench in Kailash Nath''s case (supra) and Rana Pratap Singh''s case (supra) has clearly laid down the law that the Arms licence can be cancelled/revoked even without giving an opportunity to show-cause but a post decisional hearing must be provided. The words "for such period as it thinks fit" do not mean that only for a specific period an Arms licence can be suspended. Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act does not provide that the licensing authority may suspend the licence for a specific period only, hence it cannot be said that for a non-specific period or indefinite period licence cannot be suspended or revoked. What is incumbent upon the District Magistrate is that after suspension/revocation of the Arms licence, the licensing authority must give an opportunity to the licensee to show-cause against the such suspension or revocation.

He has also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in National Capital Territory of Delhi and Another Vs. Umesh Kumar, wherein the Supreme Court held that the licensee''s arms licence shall remain cancelled till the disposal of the said appeal against his acquittal. The other cases referred to are as follows:

(i) Ramesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Station Officer,

(ii) Sunil Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others,

(iii) Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Thus, from the broad consensus of the judicial opinion what emerges is that possession of an arms licence is not a right but a privilege and if there is even the slightest whisper of the licence-holder being involved in the criminal case relating to use of firearm, the District Magistrate being the Competent Authority may in his wisdom suspend or revoke such a firearm licence. Ultimately, it is the District Magistrate who has to form an opinion as to whether suspension of such arms licence is necessary for the maintenance of law and order and peace and tranquillity and once he forms an opinion, the Courts will be cautious in interfering with such an opinion. In view of the facts of the present case and in the light of abundance of case law referred to herein, I do not find any merit in the writ petition to warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.