The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has upheld the cancellation of firearms license said that the authority has decided that continuance of arms license with the petitioner cause threat to public peace and security and considering this aspect, the arms license of the petitioner has been revoked and the authority has not cancelled the license of the petitioner merely on the ground of pendency of criminal case.
A Single Bench of Justice Abdul Moin passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Raj Kumar Gautam.
The petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:-
“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing thereby the impugned order dated 26.03.2021 and Order dated 06.08.2022 passed by opposite party no 2 & 3 which are annexed as Annexure No 1 & 2 to the petition.
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no 2 to 4 to revoke the suspension/revocation of the Arms License of the petitioner forthwith.
(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no 2 to 4 to release the Arms/12 bore DBBL Gun No 19536-BE2007 Katra Bazar, District Gonda which is surrendered at Police Station Katara Bazar, District Gonda since 08.01.2022 forthwith.”
The case set forth by the petitioner is that he was having an arms license which was issued to the petitioner on 17.12.2002. The arms license has been renewed from time to time the last renewal having been made upto 17.12.2025.
It is contended that on 20.10.2018, two FIRs have been lodged bearing Case under Sections 147, 148, 332, 153-A, 295-A, 504 & 506 I.P.C and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 against ten named persons and 40 to 50 unknown persons. However, the petitioner was not named.
Another FIR bearing Case under Sections 147, 148, 307, 332, 333, 336, 153-A, 323, 325, 504, 427 I.P.C read with Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972 and Section 3 (1) of the Public Properties Act, 1984, respectively had been lodged against the 35 named persons and 31 unknown persons. In the said FIR also, the petitioner was not named in the said FIR.
The further contention is that the authorities of Police Station Katra Bazar recommended the suspension and cancellation of the arms license of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, a notice was issued to which the petitioner submitted his reply but the competent authority vide order dated 26.03.2021 revoked the arms license of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which has been rejected vide order dated 06.08.2022. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the petition has been filed.
The Court observed that,
From a perusal of records it emerges that the petitioner was having an arms license issued to him in the year 2002 which has been renewed upto 17.12.2025. The arms license has been cancelled after due notice to the petitioner on account of the reasons which emerge from a perusal of the order dated 26.03.2021.
It is the specific case of the counsel for the petitioner, to which there cannot be any dispute, that the arms license cannot be cancelled merely on the ground of pendency of criminal case(s).
However, a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that it is not only the criminal cases which have been considered rather the competent authority has categorically recorded the conduct of the petitioner which has led to the authority to come to the conclusion that continuance of the arms license with the petitioner would be detrimental for the security of the public peace and for public safety and hence he has cancelled the said license.
In order to appreciate the order of the competent authority dated 26.03.2021 the Court may have to consider the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 which empowers the authority concerned to cancel the license.
The Court noted that,
In the case in hand, it emerges that the licensing authority has categorically recorded in his order dated 26.03.2021, after considering the reply which has been filed by the petitioner, that on 15.09.2018, an order under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C had been issued in the area which is a sensitive area . The petitioner has been charged of having actively spread rumors and having stood with his personal weapon along with various other persons and having instigated the villagers and stopped the traffic movement on the State highway and continued to remain on the spot from 12 midnight till 3 AM.
On 20.10.2018 during the religious festival he spread communal tension with the result that the District Magistrate himself went to the spot thrice at 8 PM,10 PM and 11.30 PM but despite the request made by the District Magistrate for removal of the crowd and he having informed the petitioner about Section 144 being in force, the petitioner continued to stand at the spot and also instigated the crowd. This conduct of the petitioner has been found to be of such nature as being threat to public peace and for public safety which entailed the competent authority to cancel the arms license.
Keeping in view the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, the competent authority while exercising the power as vested with him under the provisions of Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act, 1959 has revoked the license of the petitioner.
The Court said that,
Interestingly a bald averment has been made in the petition of the petitioner not being present on the spot. However, there is no averment in the petition as to why the authorities concerned would specifically name the petitioner while passing the order impugned. No malafides have been alleged in the writ petition nor any officer has been impeached by name. Moreover, the order impugned itself indicates that the order was being passed after considering the reply of the petitioner which was not found to be satisfactory and no witness or evidence was produced by petitioner in this regard. Thus, the order impugned indicates objective satisfaction of the authority concerned while cancelling the arms license of the petitioner. Thus, the Court has no option but to treat the version as has been indicated by the authorities in the order dated 26.03.2021 to be correct.
Moreover, the judgment of Ram Pratap Singh (supra) would have no applicability inasmuch as the authority concerned has not cancelled the license of the petitioner merely on the ground of pendency of criminal case rather perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the competent authority has applied his mind to the reply filed by the petitioner meaning thereby that there has been objective consideration of all facts by the authority concerned and after considering the same, the authority has decided that continuance of arms license with the petitioner would cause threat to public peace and security and considering this aspect, the arms license of the petitioner has been revoked. These all are the findings of fact and in the absence of anything to show that the aforesaid inference drawn by the competent authority is per se illegal, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same as if sitting in appeal, since the scope of judicial review in such matters in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India is very limited and narrow.
“Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion more particularly seeing the conduct of the petitioner as stands recorded in the order dated 26.03.2021, no case for interference is made out with the orders impugned’, the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.