ANJANI KUMAR,J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the licensing authority under the provision of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, thereby suspending the arms licence of the petitioner pending enquiry asking him to show cause as to why the fire arm license of the petitioner should not be cancelled/revoked for the reasons stated in the order impugned in the present writ petition.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the licensing authority does not have any power to suspend the petitioner's fire arm license, pending enquiry for indefinite period. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the provision of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1659 for the purposes of present controversy, Which is reproduced below : "17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licenses. - (1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence holder by notice in writing to deliver up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice. (2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed. (3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence - (a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or (c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it, or (d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened: or (e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver up the licence."
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance of some decisions/judgments in support of his contention and contended that the aforesaid provision has been considered firstly by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case reported in 1984(10) All LR 223 Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and thereafter another Full Bench in the case reported in 1985 (22) ACC 353 Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. and in the case, reported in 1991 (Supp) ACC 235 Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the effect of the aforesaid Full Bench decisions have been considered by learned single Judge of this Court in the case reported in 1998(37) All Cri. C 830 Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh wherein the learned single Judge after realising the provision has held that the question whether the licensing authority is clothed with the powers to suspend the licence in the midst of proceedings for suspension or revocation under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, was posed for consideration before another Full Bench of this Court in the case of Balram Singh v. State of U.P., 1989(1) RCR(Crl.) 505 (All.) : 1989(26) All Cri. C 31. The Court noticed therein the decisions referred to above and held: "The ratio in C.P. Sahu's case that there is no power to suspend pending enquiry stands completely demolished by Kailash Nath's case." ;