IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10816 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision:04.07.2011 Mahender Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. S. K. Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The orders in challenge before the Court are the orders passed in succession by authorities under the Arms Act cancelling the arms licence after a judgment of conviction was passed by a Judicial Magistrate, Narwana, against the petitioner for offence under Section 323, 325 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the orders cancelling licence does not set out anywhere, apart from stating an order of conviction that the licence is required to be cancelled that there is a threat to public peace in the manner that is contemplated under Section 17(3)(b). The learned counsel also refers to decisions of this Court that hold that a mere observation of quarrelsome type of person (Gurdial Civil Writ Petition No.10816 of 1998 (O&M) - 2 - Singh Versus State of Punjab and others-1991(2) SLJ 1039) or an ex parte report of the Superintendent of Police (Labh Singh Chattar Singh Versus the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and another-AIR 1972 Punjab & Haryana 122), could not be a ground for revocation of licence. It has been held in the decision in Kakku Venkataramaiah Versus State of Andhra Pradesh-AIR 1960 Andh Pra 420, that once a person is granted a licence and acquires a gun, he has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution (as it then existed) to hold the property subject only to the restriction imposed by the Arms Act and Rules and that right cannot be interfered with arbitrarily or capriciously. In this case, the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no report from the Superintendent of Police or any police official to say that there is a danger to the security of public peace or for public safety. The mere re-statement of a conviction for an alleged incident of the year 1983 cannot be a ground for revocation of a licence. The learned counsel argues that even when the licence was issued on 17.07.1989 and subsequently renewed in 1990 and 1994, a criminal case was still pending, but the licence has been cancelled for the only reason that the criminal case had resulted in conviction subsequently. The learned counsel states that a revision against the judgment is still pending before this Court. 3. The conviction in a criminal case could be relevant if there is also an observation or a finding that on account of such conviction there is a danger of misuse of licence by the petitioner or that he entertains any criminal intent or enmity against the persons, who had Civil Writ Petition No.10816 of 1998 (O&M) -3 - originally lodged the complaint that led to conviction. The counsel for the petitioner relies on a certificate given by the Sarpanch and Panches of the Village of Naraingarh to say that he had never misused the gun or acted rudely on any occasion by complaint by any resident of the village that imperiled the safety in the village. 4. I will not go as far as to say that criminal case conviction is irrelevant but it shall be definitely a matter which shall be considered by the authority in the light of the circumstances that may or may not exist which could pose a threat to the security of public peace or for public safety. Without a definite finding relating to threat to such peace or safety in the manner contemplated under Section 17(3)(b), there could be no suspension or revocation of the licence. The impugned orders suffers from the vice of a complete want of reference to the statutory requirement before it was cancelled. The impugned orders are, under the circumstances, set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Jind for fresh consideration for satisfaction on the basis of objective material for revocation or cancellation of licence in the manner contemplated under Section 17(3)(b). 5. The writ petition is disposed of in the light of the above directions. The authority may give notice of hearing to the petitioner for making personal representation before taking a decision in the said manner. The case shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 04.07.2011 sanjeev