Hon'ble Anil Kumar - (1.) HEARD Sri AMIT CHADHA, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh Panjwani, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 20/12/2002(Annexure No. 4) and 4/3/2006(Annexure No. 5) passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda and Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda respectively. Facts in brief as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is a holder of Gun Licence No. 348 NP Bore Rifle No. AB-01/4262. In respect to the same, a show-cause-notioe was issued to the petitioner dated 20/9/2002, thereafter, petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause-notice and after considering the same, the Licencing Authority vide order dated 20/12/2002(Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) cancelled the petitioner's Arms licence. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority/Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, rejected vide order dated 4.3.2006, hence the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders under challenge in the present case are arbitrary in nature as the orders does not satisfy the grounds as mentioned under Section 17 of the Arms Acton the basis of which arms licence granted to the petitioner is cancelled.
(3.) HE further submits that the sole reason on the basis of which licence of the petitioner has been cancelled is an FIR which was lodged against him on 4.9.2002. In the said FIR, the petitioner was not named, even in the incident in question in which FIR was lodged and a case No. 146 of 2002 {State v. Raghvendra Mishra) was registered in which Police filed a final report. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order passed by the concerned authorities are arbitrary in nature and liable to be set aside.;