High CourtsDivision Bench

Bharat Lal Singh vs District Magistrate and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 9 September 1986 · Citation: (1986) 10 ACR 631

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.N. Sapru, J · A.N. Dikshita, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arms Act, 1959 — Section 17, 2, 6
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 14679 of 1986.
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 440 words
1.

The Petitioner holds a revolver licence No. 8634/2 issued by the District Magistrate, Allahabad. The District Magistrate, Banda, by an order dated 18-8-1986 has suspended the licence and directed the Petitioner to show cause within 15 days as to why his licence should not be cancelled and has suspended the licence of the Petitioner and asked the Petitioner to deposit the weapon with police.

2.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that since the licence has been granted by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, the District Magistrate, Banda, has no jurisdiction to take action and suspend the licence or to issue notice to show cause that why his licence should not be cancelled.

3.

The ''licensing authority'' is defined in Section 2(f) of the Arms Act which reads as under:

Licensing authority means an officer or Authority empowered to grant or renew licences under rules made under this Act, and includes the Government.

4.

Admittedly the District Magistrate, Banda, is also a licensing authority as he can grant or renew a licence under the rules made under the Arms Act.

5.

Section 17 of the Arms Act gives power to the licensing authority to do various acts including suspension or cancellation of a licence. It is no where said in the Section 17 that it is only the Licensing Authority which granted the licence who can take action u/s VI. Any Licensing Authority, as defined under the Arms Act, is competent to take the action u/s 17 of the Arms Act.

6.

Therefore, we are satisfied that the District Magistrate, Banda, was fully competent to take action which he did.

7.

In the case of C.P. Sahu v. State of U.P. 1984 AWC 145 it has been held that there can be no suspension of a fire arm licence pending enquiry into the proposed cancellation. The order is, therefore, invalid and is declared as such. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that if within 7 days from today''s date, the Petitioner deposits the revolver covered by the licence No. 8634/2 with a licensed Arms Dealer at Allahabad, it shall be retained by the said Arms Dealer till the proceedings for cancellation are over. If, however, the petitiorer does not deposit the weapon as directed, the same can be taken possession of by the authorities. We make it clear that the proceedings for cancellation of licence may go in.

8.

With these observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed off.

9.

A copy of this order will be given to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner within 48 hours on payment of usual charges.