Ram Kumar vs Commissioner,Jhansi

J. C. Gupta, J.—Heard petitioner''s counsel and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

Since affidavit, counteraffidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged, in the circumstances of the case, this writ petition, with the consent of parties counsel, is disposed of finally.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 2591985 passed by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 1711989 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the petitioner''s appeal filed against the order of respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner''s licence for holding gun has been cancelled. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that the petitioner''s licence has been cancelled on two grounds, namely; that the petitioner allowed his gun to be used by a third person in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC and secondly on the ground that he is having a partybandi in the village as proceedings under Sections 107/116, Cr.P.C. were also drawn against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended before the court that in the case relating to offence punishable under Section 307, IPC the petitioner was not an accused and in any view of the matter before the disposal of appeal the said case ended into acquittal and this fact has not been taken into account by the learned Commissioner while passing the impugned order. He further urged that even proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. had been dropped by the Magistrate concerned before the passing of the order by the appellate court, he further argued that before cancelling the fire arm licence of the petitioner, the authorities should have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and since in the present case no showcause notice was ever served upon the petitioner and he had been afforded no opportunity to place his defence, the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set aside. In the counteraffidavit in reply to the averments made in paragraph 22 of the writ petition, it has not been stated specifically that any showcause notice as required under law was served upon the petitioner or that he was given opportunity of hearing and to place material on record in his defence. In the absence of such an opportunity the impugned order was bad in law and is liable to be quashed on that ground alone.

For the reasons stated above, this writ petition must succeed.

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 2591985 and 1711989 as contained in Annexures2 and 4 to the writ petition respectively are quashed. It shall however, be open for the District Magistrate to initiate fresh proceedings if he deemed it necessary, in accordance with law. In the circumstances, no order as to costs is made.