- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel. The petitioner herein was granted arm's licence under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as 'Act'). The same was cancelled. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority remanded the matter back to the licencing authority for consideration afresh. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.3.2010 the licencing authority again passed an order of cancellation of the arm's licence under Section 17(3) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner had not provided any fresh evidence to substantiate his submission that the cancellation of licence was on account of business and political rivalry mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner was alleged to have threatened the complainant with his weapon and had accosted him. On investigation, the incident was found to be correct. Accordingly, a chargesheet had been filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. Considering the aforesaid discussion and the role of the petitioner therein the licence was cancelled, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, the petitioner again filed an appeal. The appeal has also been rejected.
(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that inspite of the earlier appellate order licencing authority has again taken the same view. He further submitted that mere pendency of a single criminal case cannot be a ground for cancellation of licence. In this regard he has relied upon a judgment in the case of Kamal Prakash @ Kamalnath @ Suddan v. Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur Nagar & ors., 2010 6 ADJ 450 and the judgment rendered in the case of Sahab Singh v. Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra & ors., 2006 24 LCD 374 in support of his contention.
(3.) Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the licence has been cancelled in terms of Section 17 of the Act and the impugned orders do not suffer from any error. A perusal of the cancellation order dated 18.3.2010 reveals that the petitioner has violated Section 17(3)(b) and (d) of the Act, therefore, keeping in mind the paramount considerations of public safety and security the same has been cancelled. Section 17(3)(b) provides that the licencing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence if the licencing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence. Clause (d) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 17 permits such suspension, if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened. Using the weapon in question for threatening the complainant of a criminal case by accosting him apparently is misuse of the conditions of licence, thereby attracting Section 17(3)(d) of the Act. Based on the said incident and the role of the petitioner therein the licencing authority has formed an opinion that there is a danger to public safety and security, as is evident from the last four lines of the cancellation order dated 18.3.2010. Section 17(3) vests wide discretion with the licencing authority to suspend or revoke a licence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the opinion formed by the licencing authority is based merely on pendency of a criminal case. In fact, it is based on a consideration of the facts relating to the said case in the light of the provisions contained in Section 17(3) of the Act and based thereon an opinion has been formed by him objectively, which is permissible in law. Reference may be made in this regard to the decision of this court rendered in the case of Hridaya Narain Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 32 LCD 1068 .;