ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Supplementary affidavit filed today be accepted on record.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 3 -12 -2004 by which the District Magistrate has issued show cause notice to the petitioner to why the arm license be not cancelled and by the same order has suspended the arm license. Shri H.K. Mishra challenging the order contended that the arm license cannot be suspended during pendency of any criminal case. He further contended that District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct for deposit of the arm till the license is not cancelled. He has placed reliance on the full judgment of this Court reported in 1984 AWC 145, Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of U.P. and others and the judgment of learned Single Judge reported in 2003(1) JIC 33 (SC) : 2003(46) ACC 248, Satish Chandra v. State of U.P. and another.
(3.) I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that license of the petitioner cannot be suspended during pendency of enquiry as laid down by the Full Bench in C.P. Sahu's case (supra). The Full Bench of this Court in C.P. Sahu's case (supra) has held that if the District Magistrate has not come to a definite conclusion that there are sufficient materials and grounds for suspension of the arm license and he initiates enquiry to find out as to whether there are sufficient material or not, he has no jurisdiction to suspend the arm license. However, in the same judgment Full Bench laid down in paragraph -18 that if the District Magistrate is satisfied that possession of arms by the licensee is going to endanger public peace and safety, it can straightaway and without holding any enquiry proceed to revoke/suspend the arms license.;