Mahtab Hussain vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

This writ application is directed against the order as contained in Memo No. 96 dated 18.02.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Ranchi by which the arms licence issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2008-2009 has been cancelled on account of a recommendation made by the concerned police officer since the petitioner was made an accused in connection with Sikidiri P. S. Case No. 35 of 2012.

It has been stated by Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that very basis for passing of the impugned order dated 18.02.2014 was on account of the petitioner having been made an accused in connection with Sikidiri P.S. Case No. 35 of 2012 but charge-sheet against the petitioner was not filed and thus, the basis for such cancellation does not subsist and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has further been stated that prior to passing of the impugned order dated 18.02.2014 the petitioner was never noticed or given a show cause to explain the circumstances and the same being in violation of the principle of natural justice also would cast a cloud over the order dated 18.02.2014.

Ms. Sweta Kumari, learned J.C. G.P.-IV for the respondent State while relying on the counter affidavit has stated that the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Ranchi has acted in accordance with Section 17 of the Arms Act since the petitioner was made an accused in connection with Sikidiri P. S. Case No. 35 of 2012.

From the averments made in the writ application it appears that the petitioner had made an application for two gun licenses which were allowed and License No. 04/08/P.S. Jagarnathpur had been issued for N.P. Bore rifle and License No. 04/09/P.S. Jagarnathpur was issued by the licensing authority for one S/D.B.B.L. gun. The petitioner claims that due to a land dispute the petitioner was implicated in a false case instituted for the offence punishable under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27/35 of the Arms Act being Sikidiri P. S. Case No. 35 of 2012. In the said case after investigation, final form was submitted in favour of the petitioner and even after that the same impugned order dated 18.02.2014 while invoking Section 17 of the Arms Act the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Ranchi had cancelled both the licences issued in favour of the petitioner.

The counter affidavit merely asserts what has been stated in the impugned order dated 18.02.2014. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner from which it appears that the petitioner had submitted an application for release of his arms, in which report was called for from the concerned police station and the concerned I.O. has submitted the report and categorically stated that he is having No-Objection if the guns/arms and cartridge is released makes the impugned order dated 18.02.2014 redundant as the very basis for cancellation of the arm license of the petitioner now no longer subsists. Moreover, it is apparent from the impugned order that the petitioner was never given an opportunity to put forward his case and only on account of F.I.R. registered in Sikidiri P. S. Case No. 35 of 2012 the arm license of the petitioner has been cancelled.

Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Md. Irfan who was sent up for trial has been acquitted and pursuant thereto he has filed the writ petition which was allowed by order dated 09.04.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.3282 of 2014. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is on much better footing and that the petitioner was not charge sheeted against the said crime. He submits that the writ petition is fit to be allowed.

Accordingly, in view of the changed circumstances as denoted above the impugned order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Ranchi cannot subsist and accordingly the same is, hereby, quashed and set aside with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Ranchi to pass a fresh order on consideration of the fact that the petitioner was not charge sheeted in Sikidiri P. S. Case No. 35 of 2012 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The exercise indicated above should be completed within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions.