Munshilal, S/o Jabar Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioner has filed the present petition

challenging the order dated 21.02.2012 passed by respondent

no.3 in Appeal No.21/2011-2012 as well as order dated

09.11.2011 passed by respondent no.5.

The petitioner was granted a license for 12 bore Gun

on 10.12.2001 for self-protection within Madhya Pradesh. The

said license has been renewed from time to time and was valid

up to 31.08.2013. The petitioner being unemployed came to

Bhopal in the year 2002 for his livelihood. He was employed by

M/s Raj Homes Private Limited, Bhopal on the post of Gunman

for the security of their residential area at Minal Residency, J.K.

Road, Bhopal. M/s Raj Homes Private Limited is a company

which was incorporated in the year 1992 and is engaged in the

construction of residential houses in Bhopal City. The directors of

the M/s Raj Homes Private Limited have further incorporated

another company in the name and style of Raj Events and

Entertainment Private Limited which is a Media Group and having

a newspaper in the name and style of Raj Express Newspaper.

The M/s Raj Express Newspaper published various news items

against respondents no.6 and 7 exposing the illegal acts done by

them before the public and, therefore, respondents no.6 and 7

became revengeful against the Directors of Raj Express

Newspaper who are also the Directors of M/s Raj Homes Private

Limited. Due to this, respondents no.6 and 7 has demolished the

major portion of Minal Mall. The petitioner who happens to be an

employee of M/s Raj Homes Private Limited has been made a

scapegoat bty respondents no.6 and 7 only with an intention to

demoralize and settle the personal score with the Directors of

M/s Raj Homes Private Limited. The petitioner was engaged in the security of the Directors of M/s Raj Homes Private Limited

he, therefore, became the eyesore for respondents no.6 and 7.

Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on

10.06.2011 The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show

cause notice on 13.06.2011. In the said reply, he has given

detail with regard to purchase of cartridges and the use thereof.

Respondents vide order dated 19.08.2011 cancelled the gun

license of the petitioner. Against the order dated 19.08.2011, the

petitioner has submitted an appeal before the Commissioner

Bhopal, Division Bhopal. Thereafter on 25.08.2011 respondent

no.6 made a recommendation to the Collector, Rewa to initiate

the proceedings for cancellation of arm license granted to the

petitioner. Accordingly, the Collector, Rewa has issued a show

cause notice to the petitioner on 19.09.2011 on the ground that

the petitioner has not furnished the information in the office

about the arm even after lapse of nine years and he has

purchased 60 number of cartridges since grant of license and the

said cartridges have not been used by him for self-protection

rather they have been misused at fire in the occasion of

marriage of his niece.

The petitioner has submitted his reply to the said

show cause notice and stating that he has already given

information about the registration of arm in the M.P. Nagar

Police Station, Bhopal and out of total 60 cartridges purchased

by him, 10 cartridges have been used by fire in air to check the

performance of the said gun and 10 cartridges have been used

in the year 2003 on the occasion of marriage of the niece and 10

cartridges have been used on the occasion of Republic Day.

Thus, in total 30 cartridges out of 60 have been used by him.

The respondent no.5 thereafter issued an order dated

09.11.2011 thereby cancelling the arm licence of the petitioner

on the ground of misused of the arm. Against the order of

cancellation of licence, the petitioner has preferred an appeal

before the Commissioner, Rewa. The Commissioner vide order

dated 21.02.2012 has dismissed the said appeal. Being

aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present

petition.

Respondents have filed their reply and in the reply

they have submitted that the cancellation, suspension and

revocation of the licensce is governed by the Section 17 of the

Arms Act and as per the decision of the Supreme Court, number

of guidelines have been laid down which has been given in the

reply. In light of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the Apex

Court, respondents submits that in the given case a show cause

notice was issued to the petitioner wherein it was stated that the

licence was granted to the petitioner for self-defence and

thereafter, the petitioner has not complied with certain

mandatory requirements as contained in the rules and

subsequent to the enquiry it is found that instead of using the

Gun licence for self-defence the petitioner has misused the arm

by firing in the marriage ceremony of his niece which is

prejudicial to the public peace and the order which is also

amounts to misuse of the arm licence. Thus, to ensure the

security of the public place and secondly to ensure that the

licence holders does not misuse the licence in any manner.

Respondents authorities rightly issued the show cause to the

petitioner. After considering the reply preferred by the petitioner

by a reasoned and speaking order as per the requirement of law

it was rightly held by the Collector that the continuance of the

licence in favour of the petitioner. In light of the misuse of arms

is a prejudicial in public interest and security and, therefore,

decided to cancel the same. The appellate Authority also after

considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the

material on record has rightly upheld the order passed by the

Collector. It has further been submitted that the present writ

petition involves the dispute question of facts raised by the

petitioner. According to the decision decided by the Court while

exercising the powers or judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In view of the concurrent findings of the

fact by the Collector and subsequently by the Commissioner in

appeal their remains no iota of doubt that the petitioner has

misused the arms licence granted to him and has followed the

rules has framed under the act and the impugned order has

been passed after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid, respondents

submits that no interference is called in the said writ petition and

the same deserves to be dismissed.

The petitioner has filed the rejoinder to the said

reply, the petitioner has submitted that as per Section 17 of the

Act, licence can be revoked on the conditions stipulates therein

and the reasons assigned by respondents no.3 to 5 do not fulfill

any of the reason as enumerated above as Section 17 of the

Arms Act. The use of the fire arm contended by the petitioner

were of 28.12.2001 on that day he made fire in air for checking

the gun on 21.06.2003 wherein he made fire in air on the

occasion of the marriage of niece on 21.06.2003 and on Republic

Day i.e. on 26.01.2005. On them, there was no public threat or

there was no disturbance of public piece. After fire between

2001 to 2005, the respondents have renewed the gun licence of

the petitioner without any objection. It is only because of the

malafide intention which the petitioner is alleged against

respondents no.6 and 7, the impugned order has been passed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record. Section 17 of the Arms Act which deals with

variation, suspension and revocation of licences. The Section

17(3)(b) authorizes the licensing authority to cancel or revoke

the license for the security of public peace or for public safety.

The provisions indicate that in case the licensing authority is

subjectively satisfied that in a given case if continuation of

licence endagers public peace or public safety then the licensing

authority is empowered to cancel or revoke the licence. In the

present case a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on

10.06.2011. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show

cause notice on 13.06.2011 thereafter without considering the

reply filed by the petitioner respondent has passed the order

dated 19.08.2011. Against the order dated 19.08.2011, the

petitioner has submitted an appeal before the Commissioner,

Bhopal thereafter District Magistrate Bhopal has made

recommendation to the District Magistrate Rewa to cancel the

gun licence issued in favour of the petitioner. In light of the said

recommendation, the Collector District Rewa has issued show

cause notice dated 19.09.2011 to the petitioner. From perusal of

the said notice it reveals that the Collector while passing the

impugned order has not applied its mind to the facts of the case

and issue the order in pursuance of the recommendation made

by the District Magistrate Bhopal. The petitioner has filed the

reply to the said show cause notice on 13.06.2011, however, the

Collector has passed the order dated 09.11.2011 thereby

cancelling the gun licence issued in favour of the petitioner.

While passing the impugned order, the Collector has not

assigned any reason and has only stated that the reply of the

petitioner is not satisfactory. From perusal of Section 17 makes it

manifest that before exercising the power of revocation etc.

under that provision no notice is required to be given to the

licence holder. Sub-section (5) merely requires that for passing

an order suspending or revoking a licence, the licencing authority

shall record in writing the reasons thereof and furnish to the

holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same.

Thus, the Act or the Rules made thereunder do not contemplate

a notice being given to the licence holder before cancelling or

varying or suspending the licence of a licence holder.

Nevertheless, the act of cancelling or refusing to renew a licence

leads to grave consequences. The licence may have been

presumably obtained by a person on satisfaction of the licencing

authority about the circumstances of his individual case and for

his protection and the withdrawal or cessation of such privilege

may adversely affect the licence holder''s security or protection

and may even be a slur on his reputation. The cancellation of the

licence is a quasi-judicial act and, therefore, it attracts the rules

of natural justice. Both Sections 14 and 17(5) make the

recording in writing the reasons for such order mandatory and

furnishing to the holder of the licence a brief statement of the

same is also mandatory, unless in an exceptional case it is not

found expedient to furnish such statement. In the present case,

from perusal of the order passed by the Collector Annexure P-9

dated 09.11.2011, it reveals that no reasons have been assigned

by respondent no.5 in cancelling the arm licence issued in favour

of the petitioner. No statement of the brief has been given to

the petitioner for cancelling of his licence. Against the said order,

the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the

Act before the Commissioner and the Commissioner also

affirmed the order passed by the respondents.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the said

writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated

21.02.2012 and 09.11.2011 are hereby set aside and the

Collector is directed to pass afresh order in the matter after

giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The

aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of four months.

Certified copy as per rules.