Satpal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

G.P. Mathur, J.—A large number of writ petitions have been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the Respondents not to seize the firearms of the Petitioners and not to compel or direct them to deposit their firearms. Two such petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

In Writ Petition No. 29514 of 1994. the case of the Petitioner is that he is resident of district Shahjahanpur in the State of U.P. and he was granted a licence for a 12 bore DBBL gun by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Deemapur, Nagaland on 30.10.91 and thereafter he purchased a gun from an arms dealer of Kanpur. A news was published in a daily newspaper that the police officials of district Shahjahanpur had found that many persons had obtained forged arms licences purporting to have been issued by the authorities in the State of Nagaland. Thereafter, the local police was putting pressure upon the Petitioner to deposit his gun. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Station Officer of P. S. Tilhar, district Shahjahanpur wherein it is averred that a thorough enquiry had been made for and it was revealed that many people had acquired firearms and were keeping the same on the strength of forged arms licences which purported to have been issued by the authorities of State of Nagaland. It is asserted that the Petitioner is resident of Shahjahanpur and he never resided or carried on any business or occupation in Nagaland nor he was granted any arms licence there. A gang was operating which has manufactured forged arm licences which purport to have been issued in the State of Nagaland. Though the copy of the counter-affidavit was served upon the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on 30.3.95 but no rejoinder-affidavit has been filed.

In Writ Petition No. 3002 of 1994, the case of the Petitioner is that he is resident of district Shahjahanpur but on account of poverty he went to Nagaland to earn his livelihood by working as labourer and during his stay there he applied for and was granted a licence for a 12 bore DBBL gun by Deputy Commissioner, Mon, Nagaland. Thereafter he purchased a gun from a licensed arms dealer in the State of U.P. In the licence it was mentioned that the same was valid for "All India". However, the local police was compelling the Petitioner to deposit his gun. Since the licence had not been suspended or cancelled the authorities had no right to deprive the Petitioner of his firearm. In this case, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the State.

So far as the Writ Petition No. 29514 of 1994 is concerned, it is clear from the counter-affidavit that the Petitioner has no arm licence in his favour and he purchased and is keeping a gun on the strength of a forged arm licence. Since the Petitioner has no arm licence in his favour, he has no right to keep a weapon and the authorities are fully entitled to seize the same.

So far as the Writ Petition No. 30032 of 1994 is concerned, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the State though one month time was granted on 20.9.94. However, as a period of more than two years has elapsed and similar controversy has already been decided by me, I do not consider it proper to grant any further time to the State for filing counter-affidavit. The question whether a Deputy Commissioner of the State of Nagaland can grant a firearm licence which will be valid in the State of U.P. despite the fact that an endorsement to the effect that it is valid in "All India" has been mentioned therein, has been considered by me in Pravesh Kumar and Anr. v. District Magistrate and Ors. 1995 (1) AWC 435: 1995 ACC 312. After considering the provisions of Arms Act and the Rules made thereunder, it has been held that a Deputy Commissioner has no authority to issue a firearm licence which may be valid for whole of India and that the firearm licences issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Nagaland are wholly invalid in the State of U.P. It has been further held that the police in the State of U.P. is entitled to seize the firearms of all such persons who are holding the arms on the strength of licences granted by the Deputy Commissioners of the State of Nagaland.

It may also be mentioned here that the correctness of the decision rendered in Pravesh Kumar (supra) was challenged in Special Appeal No. 657 of 1996, Suresh Chandra Misra v. State of U.P. and Ors., but the same was dismissed by a Division Bench on 4.9.1996.

Sri Ramchandra Asthana has submitted that right to possess arms is embedded in Article 21 of the Constitution and is a fundamental right as held by a learned single Judge in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. District Magistrate 1993 AWC 635 and the view to the contrary taken by me in Pravesh Kumar (supra) requires reconsideration. I had expressed disagreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt (supra) on the basis of the earlier decisions of this Court in Masiuddin v. Commissioner 1972 ALJ 573 ; Kailash Nath and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, and Balram Singh v. State of U.P. 1989 ALJ 23 (FB). The decision in Pravesh Kumar was rendered on 18.1.1995. Shortly thereafter a Full Bench of five Judges in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Verda Ram and Others, , has specifically overruled the view taken by the learned single Judge in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt and has held that right to carry firearm does not come within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Sri Asthana has next urged that in view of Section 21 of the Arms Act, the Petitioner should be permitted to deposit the firearm with a licensed dealer or should be permitted to dispose of the same. In my opinion Section 21 will apply where possession of a firearm on the strength of a valid arm licence ceases to be lawful as a consequence of expiration of the duration of the licence or suspension or revocation thereof or by issuance of a notification u/s 4 or by any reason whatsoever. This section will have no application where the arms acquired on the basis of a forged licence. Therefore, in all such cases where the arms were acquired on the basis of forged licences benefit of this provision cannot be given. It is only in such cases where a person acquired a firearm on the strength of a valid licence from the State of Nagaland and his possession thereof has become unlawful on account of his keeping the weapon with him in a place which is outside the territory of State of Nagaland, that the benefit of Section 21 of the Act can be given. It is not possible for this Court to hold an inquiry regarding the genuineness of the licence in such individual case in present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is not possible to issue any direction as arrayed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed. Interim orders are vacated.