Kanshi Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Others

AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This matter arises under the Arms Act. In this case, licence of the petitioner-appellant under the Arms Act was cancelled by the Licensing Authority after giving due notice to him. Against that order, the petitioner-appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed, which was rejected by the learned single Judge vide his Judgment dated 6.5.1999 on the ground that the impugned orders passed by the Licensing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority do not call for any interference.

Aggrieved with the order dated 6.4.1999 passed by the learned single Judge, the petitioner-appellant has preferred this appeal, which has come up for decision before us.

It is contended by Mr. H.S. Sandhu, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant that the Impugned order passed by the Licensing Authority is hot based on any relevant material on record against the appellant and even the appellate authority has also failed to consider this aspect of the matter.

Our attention was drawn to the report Annexure-3 submitted by the Superintendent of Police to the District Collector, Sriganganagar. We have perused the same. In the report, it has been stated that on 2.9.1995, one Indraraj son of Rajaram By Caste Jat Resident of 28 M.L. filed a complaint that accused Ramkumar, Bhagirath, Netram, Begaram, Munshilal son of Moharlal Swami, Motaram, Narayanram son of Sheolal Jat and Manphool son of Kaluram Brahmin resident of 28 M.L. committed murder of Devilal and injured Premprakash, Om Prakash, Rajaram and complainant Indraraj. On that complaint, a case under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 IPC read with Sec.27 of the Arms Act was registered against them. That report also refers to the statement made by one Moharlal By Caste Swami resident of 28 M.L. that Om Prakash son of Ganpatram by Caste Jat resident of 31 M.L., Indraraj son of Rajaram, Hetram son of Rajaram, Rajaram son of Sanwata Ram and Devilal son of Sanwataram by caste Jat resident of 28 M.L. have also injured him and Ramkumar by gun-fire. On the basis of that statement, a case under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 149 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act was also registered. On the basis of these two reports, it was suggested by the Superintendent of Police that there appears to be heavy tension between the two parties and many of the persons belonging to either of the parties have firearms and if they are allowed to keep these fire-arms with them, they may cause loss to the person and public property. In this report, details of the persons having fire-arms with them residing in 28 M.L. and 31 M.L. have also been given, which includes the name of the petitioner-appellant.

It is true that the petitioner-appellant was not named in-the FIR but the Superintendent of Police has reported in his report that there are two parties, which are bent upon in killing members of either party and since the petitioner-appellant belongs to one of the group of those parties, there may be possibility of his involvement in any criminal activity, which may create disturbance in public peace and security. In view of this, the Superintendent of Police advised for cancellation of Arm License of six persons in his report, in which the name of the petitioner-appellant also figures. It was in these circumstances, that the arm licence of the petitioner-appellant was canceled by the Licensing Authority.

It is relevant to mention here that Section 70 of the Arms Act empowers the District Magistrate who happens to the Licensing Authority to order for suspension or revocation of license, if it is deemed necessary in the interest of public peace and security. Thus, it is clear that the action of the Licensing Authority is not against any statutory provisions of the Arms Act. We have already noticed above that the appeal preferred u/s 18 of the Arms Act has already been dismissed by the Appellate Authority upholding the order of the Licensing Authority.

In this view of the matter, this appeal has no merit. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

However, the petitioner-appellant is at liberty to move the concerned authority, if there is any change, for grant of fresh licence and on such a petition being filed, the concerned Licensing Authority shall consider the same on merits and dispose of the same after affording an opportunity to the petitioner-appellant.