IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12848 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 23, 2010. Shamsher Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ludhiana, whereby his Arm's Licence has been revoked, as also the order dated 20.4.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal against the above- mentioned order of the Additional District Magistrate, Ludhiana. [2] The petitioner was issued the Arm's Licence No.4209/ November/2007/Ludhiana, in the year 2007 and on granting the same, he purchased one Rifle and one Pistol alongwith cartridges. The petitioner has admittedly a dispute with his three sisters and their husbands in relation to the jointly owned huge immovable ancestral properties stated to be in his C.W.P.No .12848 of 2010 2 exclusive possession. Both the parties are in civil litigation and it appears that proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. have also been initiated. As the petitioner was allegedly threatening his sisters and their husbands, the S.H.O. Police Station Raikot directed him to deposit his weapons. The petitioner did deposit the weapons on 12.8.2008 (Annexure P-1) but immediately moved an application on 23.9.2008 (Annexure P-2) for the return thereof. Meanwhile, it appears that one more complaint was received against the petitioner which was enquired into by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raikot, who vide his report dated 27.10.2009 observed that the petitioner was habitual in making false complaints and is a quarrelsome person who keeps on fighting with everyone in the village. It was reported that the petitioner has been harassing and beating his wife and children too and had already divorced his two wives. The petitioner’s civil and criminal litigation with his own sisters was also taken into consideration by the Sub Divisional Magistrate who recommended cancellation of petitioner’s Arms Licence and confiscation of the weapons. Based upon that report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) and after considering his reply, the Additional District Magistrate, Ludhiana, vide his impugned order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure P-5) revoked the petitioner’s Arms Licence. His weapons were ordered to be confiscated and deposited in the Malkhana. The petitioner went in appeal which has also been turned down by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, vide the impugned order dated 20.4.2010 (Annexure P-6). C.W.P.No .12848 of 2010 3 [3] Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. [4] I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the records. [5] Section 17 (3) (b) & (c) of the Arms Act, 1959, enables the Licensing Authority to revoke an Arms Licence if it deems necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety or if the licence was obtained by suppressing the material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the licence holder. [6] During the course of hearing, it could not be disputed that the petitioner has a property dispute with his sisters, in relation to which civil litigation is pending between the parties and proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. have also been initiated. Similarly, the fact that the petitioner has more than one matrimonial disputes besides strain relationship with his own children is also not in dispute. The petitioner appears to be temperamentally a strong headed person who is unable to pull on with his own family members. Such an inference is strengthened by the fact that the police report also suggests him to be a quarrelsome person in the village. Such a person, if armed with weapons, can undoubtedly be a threat to the public peace and safety of his own children and other family members. [7] The petitioner has chosen to disclose only selective information in the writ petition as no fact particulars as to when the dispute had arisen with his wives or sisters have been disclosed. Such like disputes do not erupt suddenly and it cannot be ruled out that at the time of C.W.P.No .12848 of 2010 4 applying for the Arm's Licence in the year 2007, the petitioner suppressed the material information from the authorities. [8] That involvement in proceedings under Section 107 or 117 Cr.P.C. is a sufficient ground to revoke the Arms Licence, has been impliedly held by the Allahabad High Court in Udeyveer Singh versus D.M. Farrukhabad, AIR 1981 (Allahabad) 244 . [9] The mis-use of the Arms Licence to browbeat someone or suppression of material information while seeking Arms Licence, are undoubtedly valid grounds to revoke his Arms Licence, as ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Chandrakant Hargovindas Shah versus Deputy Commissioner of Police and another, 2009 (7) S.C.C.186. [10] The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e. Mohinder Singh versus State of Haryana, 1993 (1) RRR 99, does not help him for the reason that in that case, the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. had already been dropped and the petitioner- licence holder stood discharged from the allegations, even before cancellation of the licence. [11] In Inder Singh versus State of Punjab, 1975 P.L.R. 327, the order revoking the Arms Licence was set-aside for the reason that it did not refer to any of the grounds mentioned in Section 17 of the Act. [12] Similarly, in Gurdev Singh versus State of Punjab (1993 (2) RRR 629, the order revoking the Arms Licence was set-aside by this Court as the licence was cancelled on the ground of arrest and conviction in a C.W.P.No .12848 of 2010 5 case under the Arms Act, which had, in fact, taken place 10 or 11 years’ prior to the grant of the Arms Licence. In other words, no disability was incurred by the licence holder after the grant of licence to him. [13] The decision in Labh Singh Chattar Singh versus The Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division Ambala and another, AIR 1972 122, also does not help the petitioner as in that case, the Arms Licence was cancelled without giving an opportunity of hearing. [14] In Ranjeet Singh versus State of M.P., 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 683, also the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which the Arms Licence was revoked, were dropped on the very next day on the basis of a compromise having been entered into between the parties and thus, the order of cancellation of the Arms Licence was held to be based upon non-existent grounds. [15] Similarly, in Mukhtiar Singh versus State of Punjab, 1997 (3) RCR (Criminal) 95, the Arms Licence was cancelled merely by alleging involvement of the petitioner in three Excise cases without referring to the material particulars. [16] The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Masiuddin Naimuddin versus Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and another, (AIR 1972, Allahabad, 510, also does not help the petitioner as that was a case of enmity of the licensee and other persons without there being any untoward incident. [17] On the contrary, the petitioner in the present case has apparently mis-used his Arms Licence. C.W.P.No .12848 of 2010 6 [18] In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. [19] Dismissed. July 23, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE