- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Petitioner's fire-arm licence was placed under suspension by Collector vide order dated 11.12.2008. Petitioner came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 3656 of 2009 and the said order dated 11.12.2008 was quashed by this Court by following order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter-affidavit. By means of the impugned order dated 11.12.2008, after suspending the arms license of the petitioner, he has been required to show-cause as to why his license should not be cancelled. This Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58216 of 2005 (Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and others) wherein, after considering the Full Bench decision of this Court in the cases of Balaram Singh v. State of U.P. and others,1988 AWC 1481. Kailash Nath v. State of U.P., 1985 AWC 493, as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and others, 1998 ACJ 1449, has held that the arms license cannot be placed under suspension pending enquiry. In such view of the matter the suspension of the arms license of the petitioner as directed by the impugned order dated 11.12.2008 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands partly allowed. The suspension of the arms license of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 11.12.2008 is quashed. If in pursuance of the suspension order of the licensed weapon of the petitioner has been seized, the same shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. However, the respondents shall proceed to take appropriate action with regard to the cancellation of the arms license of the petitioner in accordance with law. In case if the petitioner has not submitted his reply to the show-cause notice, he may do so within a month from today and thereafter the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
(3.) This Court clearly took a view that arms licence cannot be placed under suspension pending inquiry and, therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. However, this Court permitted the Collector to make inquiry and pass final order with respect to cancellation of licence, if so required. The Collector in a complete strange manner passed a fresh order on 19.3.2009 suspending fire-arm licence of petitioner again observing that this Court has permitted him to pass a fresh order of suspension after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Either the simple English language in judgment was not appreciated or not read at all by Collector himself or his understanding is extremely poor. The judgment is very categorical and clear. It quashes the order of suspension on the ground that Collector did not possess any such power following decision of Full Bench in Balram Singh and Division Bench decision in Sadri Ram. Such kind of understanding on the part of an officer holding the office of District Magistrate is really surprising. If this is the level of understanding and appreciation, this Court feels pity on the situation as to how such kind of officers would be able to manage more onerous duties administration of the district.;