- (1.) Heard Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Ramesh Pundir, learned counsel for the respondent. Since all the special appeals have been directed against a common judgment dated 26.8.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in a bunch of petitions, against which the above noted seven appeals have been filed, therefore, the same are being decided by a common judgment. None of the counsel for the parties have any objection to the same. However, for the purpose of deciding these appeals we have taken into consideration the record of Special Appeal No. 976 of 2014 (State of U.P. v. Rakesh). By means of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dated 26.8.2012 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby a cost of Rs. 5000/- has been imposed on the appellants. Brief facts of the case are that by the order passed in September, 2013, the fire-arm licence of the petitioner was placed under suspension. This order was challenged in a writ petition in which on 8.8.2014 the learned single Judge has passed the following order: "Let District Magistrate, Saharanpur shall file a personal affidavit giving following facts: (I) How many fire-arm licence have been issued in the area under Police Station Deoband. (II) How many suspension orders have been passed after the riots took place on 09.09.2013, till date. A list of such cases shall be appended. (III) Whether all those suspension orders are continuing or some have resulted in cancellation or withdrawal, as the case may be. These details, separately, shall be provided. (IV) What was the police report? Whether it is in respect of an individual licensee or in general. (V) The report submitted by police, pursuant whereto impugned orders have been passed, shall also be produced before this Court on the next date. The information above shall be produced before this Court on 26.08.2014 through an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate." Immediately thereafter on 11.8.2014, the District Magistrate passed the order revoking the suspension of the fire-arm licence of the writ petitioner after it found that there was no justification for suspending the fire-arm licence of the petitioner. The learned single Judge recorded that in normal course, the writ petition would have been rendered infructuous after the order dated 11.8.2014 was passed. However, learned counsel for the writ petitioner requested that cost should be imposed because of the harassment which the writ petitioner had to undergo and was forced to file the writ petition as the suspension of fire-arm licence remained operative for one year till the District Magistrate concerned looked into the matter and passed appropriate final orders. It was only after the petitioner filed this writ petition and the order dated 8.8.2014 was passed, that within 3-days thereafter, the order of suspension was revoked on 11.8.2014.
(2.) On perusal of the record and the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, the learned single Judge arrived at the finding, which is reproduced as under: "In respect of these 72 persons, stark similarity/identical language, except of difference of names, is very evident from a bare reading of these notices which the Incharge Inspector Deoband has given, recommending suspension of fire-arm licence of all these persons". Further finding has been recorded that the District Magistrate could not dispute the fact that the police reports in all cases were in identical language. The writ Court has also observed: "Learned Standing Counsel could not explain and give any reason whatsoever as to why fire-arm licences of only one section of society were selected for suspension. In any riot, there are two parties. It is admitted and also evident from record that the alleged riot involved members of two sections/communities of society. None else but those of only one sections of society gave an occasion for similar action is difficult to believe and beyond apprehension. In fact the affidavit is totally silent on this aspect. Sri O.P. Verma, Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur is also present before this Court alongwith record but neither he could give any reason as to why all 72 cases of suspension of fire-arm licence relates to only one section of society nor from record any reason could discern. "The executive must understand, when statutory power has been conferred upon them by legislature, it has deposed a heavy confidence upon them that statutory power shall be exercised without fear, favour and/or ill-will, to any individual or group of individuals of common identity. The executive shall govern all persons alike and would apply rule of law with open mind to all, equally and at par. "In these cases, unfortunately, this objectivity, independence and impartiality is lacking. I have no doubt in my mind that power of suspension of fire-arm licence was not exercised legally and it was for reason other than bona fide. It travels in the realm of malice in law. "These facts apparently fortify the contention advanced by learned counsel for petitioners that suspension of fire-arm licences of only one section of society was for reasons other than bona fide. This is nothing but a selective executive action, patently arbitrary and discriminatory. It seriously disturbs string of communal harmony in the society. The confidence of a large section of society shakes looking to execution action of this nature."
(3.) After relying on the following various decisions of the Apex Court, namely S.R. Venkatraman v. Union of India and another, 1979 AIR(SC) 49; Mukesh Kumar Agrawal v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 13 JT 643; Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others, 2009 2 SCC 592; HMT Ltd. and another v. Mudappa and others, 2007 3 JT 112, the Writ Court held that the order of suspension of fire-arm licence travels in the realm of malice in law and thereafter imposed a cost of Rs. 5000/- in each writ petition.;