CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14023 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14023 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 4, 2011 Shri Parbhakar Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, Advocate, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 26.5.2009 (Annexure P-13), whereby the appeal filed by him against the cancellation of his licence, which was ordered on 5.8.2008 has been dismissed. The petitioner is a holder of Arms Licence for .12 Bore Gun and one Non Prohibited Bore Revolver/Pistol and one Non Prohibited Bore Rifle. Arms licence of these weapons was issued to the petitioner after getting verification report from the Police and following the due process of law. The petitioner is holding a Rifle . 315 Bore and 12 Bore DBBL Gun and .32 Bore LLAMA. On 6.2.2007, an F.I.R. No.21 under Sections CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14023 of 2009 -2- 148/149/323/356/427/307/506 IPC coupled with offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Sadar Sonepat was registered against some of the persons by one Karmabir Singh. The petitioner has averred that he heard some commotion while sitting in the office of Sonepat Truck Union. As per the petitioner, he has been involved in this F.I.R. because he was found in his car while coming from Gurgaon to Sonepat and on being checked his licensed weapons along with licence was found in his possession. The petitioner's name, however, is not mentioned in the F.I.R. The said weapons were released to the petitioner. After investigation, challan in the above noted F.I.R. has been presented. Because of this incident, Arms Licence of the petitioner was initially suspended. Thereupon, the petitioner had deposited the weapons with the Lokindra Arms Store, Civil Lines Gurgaon. While the petitioner was in the process of representing against the order of suspending his Arms Licence, he was issued a show cause notice to which he had filed a detailed reply. After considering the same, the Arms Licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on 5.8.2008 as per the provisions of Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'). The reason given in this order is that there was grave enmity between the parties and as such the petitioner can again misuse his weapons. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed on 26.5.2009. The petitioner has, accordingly, impugned both the orders before this Court through the present writ petition. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14023 of 2009 -3- The respondents have filed reply, in which it is stated that the petitioner was found involved in F.I.R. No.21 dated 26.2.2007. On account of this, the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, had recommended cancellation of Arms Licence issued to the petitioner in the year 2006. The reasons in this regard are that the petitioner was found with the weapons which were taken into possession by the Police. It is , accordingly, stated that it would not be in public interest if these arms remained with the petitioner as he can misuse the same in future. It is also stated that the petitioner was served a show cause notice and order has been passed after following due process of law. When the case came up for hearing before this Court on 26.11.2010, the plea raised by the State was noticed, where it was urged that the licenced arms held by the petitioner were used in the crime. Finding that there was nothing on record to indicate that any shot was fired by the petitioner from his weapon, the State counsel was required to file an additional affidavit in this regard. The State counsel today has placed before the Court an additional affidavit of S.I./S.H.O. , Police Station, Sonepat. It is mentioned in the affidavit that the petitioner did not fire any shot from his weapon and since no shot was fired, the weapon was not sent to F.S.L. Madhuban. The affidavit is taken on record. In view of this factual position, it would need consideration whether there is any justification for cancellation of the Arms Licence issued to the petitioner on mere apprehension that it may be misused. It is seen that so far it is not proved or CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14023 of 2009 -4- established that the petitioner has misused any weapon. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Masiuddin Naimuddin Versus Commissioner, Allahabad and another, AIR 1972 Allahabad 510, to say that mere existence of enmity between a licensee and another person would not establish the necessary connection with security of the public peace or public safety. As held in this case, there has to be some evidence of the provocative utterance of the licensee or of his suspicious movements to show the evidence of enmity . The counsel then refers to Heera Lal Varma Versus Commissioner Kumaun Mandal, Nainital and others, AIR 1992 Allahabad 10, where it is observed that it would be incumbent upon the licnesing authority to consider the question of public peace and public safety vis-a-vis the question of the safety of the life and property of the petitioner. In Ram Murti Madhukar Versus District Magistrate, Sitapur, 1999 CRI.L. J.3712, it is viewed that suspension of Arms Licence merely on the ground of public interest can not be considered justified. Even the suspension of licence for unspecified period was not held proper. Mere pendency of a criminal case would also not be a justifiable ground to suspend the weapons. In my view, the decision to cancel the Arms Lincence of the petitioner has not been taken on valid consideration. The licenced arms held by the petitioner were not used in the offence. Merely because, he was carrying weapon in his car may not be valid ground to cancel his licence. After all he had a valid licence to carry weapons. As per Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act, the licensing authority can order suspension of licence or could revoke the licence CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14023 of 2009 -5- if it deems necessary for security of public peace or for public safety. Since the Arms Licence of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 17(3) (b) of the Act, obviously, this has been so done for security of public peace or for public safety. As held in Heera Lal Varma's case (supra), the licensing authority has to consider the question of public peace and public safety vis-a-vis the question of the safety of the life and property of the petitioner as well. There is no valid ground either made out or taken into consideration while revoking the licence issued to the petitioner. I am, thus, of the view that the competent authority has not exercised its jurisdiction on an appropriate consideration, which is relevant for the exercise of power/jurisdiction to cancel the licence. The aspect of security of public peace or public safety has not been considered in the background of the safety of the life and property of the petitioner. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. The matter, is remitted back for reconsideration in the light of the reasons as noticed above to see if there would be any need to cancel the Arms Licence of the petitioner. The concerned respondent would provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while passing the order. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. January 4, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE