RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioner's father was granted a licence for possessing 0.12 bore Double Barrel Gun. It was transferred in the name of the petitioner in the year 1977. It is alleged that one Charan Singh son of Ganga Shyam who was inimical towards the petitioner, filed a false case against him under Sections 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. The petitioner preferred an application before respondent No. 1 stating therein that he has been falsely implicated in the said criminal case. No evidence was led to prove the charges and the proceedings against him were dropped for want of evidence and the petitioner was discharged. It is submitted that except the aforesaid criminal proceedings under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. not a single First Information Report has ever been lodged against the petitioner but the licence has been cancelled by respondent No. 1 without application of mind in a mechanical manner. It is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard in the matter or to show cause notice before his gun licence was suspended but thereafter, was directed to show cause as to why his gun licence be not cancelled. The District Magistrate, Mathura appointed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata as Enquiry Officer, who for a report from Sub- Inspector of Police Station Chhata, District Mathura. Placing reliance on the said report of Sub-Inspector P.S. Chhata he 13-4- 1984 recommended that the licence of the petitioner be cancelled. In pursuance of the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 29-4- 83 cancelling the of the licence petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner Agra, respondent No. 2, who it is alleged without going into the merits of the case and without considering the record dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.4.1985. The order passed by the District Magistrate, Mathura dated 29-4-85 and the order dated 16-4-85 of the respondent No. 2 in appeal are impugned in the present writ petition.;