D. P. S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the constitution, petitioner while challenged the order dated 27-3-1981 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jalaun, cancelling his firm arm licence in respect of S. B. B. L. gun no. 127 (licence no 2325), whereby the direction for taking steps for prosecuting him were also issued and the order dated 14-9-1981 passed by the commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in appeal under section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act) has, apart from the relief for quashing the same, sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no 2 for renewal of his licence.
(2.) THE petitioner was required to file supplementary affidavit stating the facts relating to the question for which the fee for renewal of the licence was deposited. Accordingly, petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit on 14-8-1991 stating that he applied for renewal of his licence on 8-12-1979 and deposited the renewal fee for a period of three years i.e. upto 1981. Inspite of opportunity having been given to the learned standing Counsel, no supplementary counter affidavit has been filed. The facts leading to the controversy involved in this case are ; (a) that the petitioner was granted a licence by the District Magistrate, Jalaun for a SBL gun under licence no. 2325 in the year 1963 and since then the same was continuously renewed each time for a period of three years. The petitioner, who belongs to respectable family, never mis-used the fire arm and renewal was done from time to time. In the year 1976, he deposited the renewal fre for renewal of his licence for a period of three years i.e. upto 31st December, 1979. The licence, under law, was renewable for the same period for which it was initially renewed. Initially it was for a period of three years. The petitioner remained under the impression that his licence was renewed upto 31st December. 1979 and as such he deposited the renewal fee for renewal of licence for three years and on 8-12-1979 made an application for renewal of the same. (b) Consequent upon the said application dated 8-12-1979 for the renewal of the licence, petitioner was served with a notice by the Additional District Magistrate, Jalaun, dated 14-1-1980 asking him to show cause why the renewal of the licence was not done earlier, petitioner thereupon submitted his reply to the said notice explaining the circumstance that he earlier deposited the renewal fee for a period of three years and an application for the renewal was also made and he remained under a bonafide impression that the renewal has been done for three years i.e. uptil 31-12-1979 and accordingly an application was moved for renewal of his licence on 8-12-1979. The Additional District Magistrate cancelled the licence of the petitioner by saying that he has committed default wilfully and the affidavit filed by him cannot condone his Responsible conduct. The petitioner preferred an appeal. In appeal, the Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi look the view that firstly the appeal was not maintainable under section 18 of the Act and secondly there was nothing to show that mistake was bonafide.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Sri R. C. Srivastava, senior Advocate contended that the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jalaun as well as by the Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi, are illegal and arbitrary and in support of his contentions he submitted the fact of making of the application for renewal of the licence, for a period of three years, on 8-12-1979 by this itself establishes the bonafide of the petitioner. He further submitted that in the absence of the denial of the statement made in the supplementary affidavit filed by him on 14-8-1991, before the Additional District Magistrate, there was no material whatsoever, which could be the basis for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner committed wilful default for not getting his Iicence renewed earlier. These submissions have got substance. The reasoning as given by the petitioner was not considered in proper perspective and the finding recorded is not based on any relevant material existing before the Additional District Magistrate. He next contended that under law the district Magistrate is under an obligation to renew the licence for the same period for which it was initially done and in case he chooses to renew for a shorter period, in that case he had to record reasons therefor in writing. In the present case, the Additional District Magistrate did not record any reason while renewing the licence for a period less than three years, which was a condition precedent. In a society wedded to rule of law, every authority, high or low has to act according to law. In the present case undoubtedly there has been deviation. The submission as advanced by the counsel for the petitioner has got substance. It is opt to quote the relevant provisions as contained in sub-section 3 of section 15 of the Act, which is the sheet Anchor of the submission : "Every licence shall, unless the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides in any case, be renewable for the same period for which the licence was originally granted and shall be so renewable from time to time and the provisions of sections 13 and 14 shall apply to the renewal of a licence as they apply to the grant thereof." It is not in dispute that originally licence was granted for three years, prior to the application for renewal dated 8-12-1979, the fee for renewal was deposited for three years and also the application for renewal was for three years and in view of the provisions (supra) renewal ought to have been made for three years. No order in writing was passed for renewal of the licence for the shorter period. It is a case where the Additional District Magistrate ignored the mandate of law and acted contrary to that. In such a situation no blame can be thrust on the petitioner and he cannot be made to suffer, blamed or condemned for the wrong act of the authorities. Further, if the concerned authority violate the mandate of law contained under sub-section 3 of section 15 of the Act, and renewed the arm licence for a period shorter than that for which it was originally granted without passing any order in writing specifying reason for doing so, then the renewal shall be deemed for the same period for which the licence, was initially granted and renewed.;