R.H.ZAIDI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and also perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18-8-1990 passed by the licensing authority under the Arms Act suspending the licences of the petitioner of a N.P. Bore rifle and of a 12 bore S.B.B.L. gun and the order dated 5-10-1990 passed by the appellate authority dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for interim relief and entertaining/admitting the appeal filed by the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner, who is the holder of aforesaid licenses of a rifle and of a 12 bore gun, never misused his guns nor any first information report was ever lodged against him. He took a loan from the Bank after following the procedure prescribed under the law. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the whole amount of loan has been repaid by the petitioner. In the village, there was parti-bandi. One Mr. Mata Prasad, M.L.A., was against the petitioner and belonged to Janta Dal while the petitioner was a member of the Congress party. Mata Prasad approached the licensing authority and got his licenses suspended wholly on frivolous ground that the licenses of the petitioner were hurdle in the recovery of loan. It has been state that to this effect, no first information report was ever lodged by any authority or any person against the petitioner at any Police Station. The licensing authority acting wholly arbitrarily suspended licenses of the petitioner vide its order dated 18-8-1990 merely on the ground that the licenses of the petitioner were hurdle in the recovery of the loan, as stated above, without affording him an opportunity of hearing before suspension of license. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner. He has also made an application for grant of interim relief. However, the said application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Commissioner by his order dated 5-10-1990. The appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending. Hence the present petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the order passed by the licensing authority does not come within the purview of anyone of the clauses of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act. It was urged that in the present case, no allegation of abuse or misuse of the said guns has been made in the order of suspension nor any first information report is alleged to have been filed. According to him, even filing of a first information report is not sufficient to take any action for suspension or cancellation of arm license. Further, in this case period for which suspension shall remain operative, has not been specified, therefore, suspension order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. He referred to the decisions of this Court in Ram Murari Madhukar v. District Magistrate, Sitapur, reported in 1999(3) RCR(Criminal) 654 (All.) : (1998) 3 All WC 2191 : (1999 All LJ 1518), Raghubir Sahai v. District Magistrate, Jhansi, reported in 1986 All Cri C 480; and Jugul Kishore v. District Magistrate, Jalaun is reported in 1978 (8) ACC 389 (sic) in support of his submissions.;