Abhinava Upadhya, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order cancelling his gun licence and the order passed on appeal filed against the aforesaid order of cancellation of gun licence.
(2.) THE licence of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that there was a severe dispute between the family of the petitioner and another family of the same village where the petitioner resided; and, because of this dispute, the son of the petitioner had murdered daughter of the other family and was convicted and is serving life term. The report submitted by the police authorities states that due to the aforesaid incident, there is grave and severe rivalry between the two families and the possession of the gun remaining with the petitioner would be detrimental to the security and breach of peace. The stand of the petitioner before the authorities below was that after the said incident he had sold off a major portion of his property and settled into some other place and, therefore, it could not be said that there was any danger to any member of the rival family. To the aforesaid contention, the finding of the authorities is that the family still has some property in the area and the petitioner continuously visits the village to look after the same, and due to continuing rivalry between the two families, there is always a likelihood that the firearm may be misused. To substantiate the aforesaid apprehension, it has also been stated in the order impugned that on 3.3.1983 an altercation between the two families had taken place and a complaint to this effect has also lodged with the concerned police station. According to the police authorities, the said incident did not take an ugly turn only because of the fact that the petitioner's gun was already confiscated after suspension of his arm licence. Therefore, the cancellation of the licence was just and proper to maintain peace.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Mr Virendra Singh, submits that there was no criminal case pending against the petitioner nor any case was lodged against him. Only a compliant was made but that could not have been a ground for cancellation of his arm licence. It is further contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the police report does not indicate that the arm was ever used in any crime. Even in the case lodged against the son of the petitioner, the said arm was not found to have been used. It is further contended that the arm licence has been cancelled merely on an apprehension that in case of any altercation between the two families, the said gun would be used. According to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on a mere apprehension, the licence could not have been cancelled; at most, it could have been suspended. Therefore, cancellation of the petitioner's gun licence merely on an apprehension was not justified.;