- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the suspension order, by which their arms licence has been suspended. Since common issues have been raised, all these writ petitions are being decided together by a common judgment. The petitioners were granted an arms licence by the authorities under the Arms Act. By the impugned notice, the arms licence of the petitioners has been suspended and a notice has been issued to them to show-cause as to why their arms licence should not be revoked.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suspension order has not been issued for a specified period and in fact it has been issued for an indefinite period. Another submission made is that the arms licence could not be suspended pending inquiry and that the weapon was not involved in the crime and therefore, the suspension of the arms licence could not be made on the ground that a criminal case was pending. One of the Counsels for the petitioner further made a submission that the petitioner had been absolved in the criminal case and that in another case, a final report had been submitted and therefore, such criminal cases could not be made a ground for the suspension of the arms licence. In Changa Prasad Sahu v. State of U. P. and others, 1984 AWC 145, a Full Bench of this Court held that an order of suspension can be passed pending an inquiry provided the licensing authority record reasons for suspending the licence but, if the licensing authority finds that he was not in a position to issue an order for suspension and that a formal inquiry was necessary to find out as to whether the conditions existed for suspending the licence, in that case, the licence could not be suspended pending an inquiry. However, if the material facts existed, the licensing authority could suspend the arms licence straightway without holding an inquiry. This view of the Full Bench was reiterated by another Full Bench of this Court in Rana Pratap Singh and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 1995 (1) JIC 1062 (All) (FB) : 1995 ACJ 200. Recently, a learned Single Judge, after considering various case laws on this aspect in Writ Petition No. 8723 of 2007, Ramesh Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. , decided on 7-3-2007, held that- (a) the condition precedent for suspending an arms licence pending an inquiry is that there should be material available before the licensing authority to be satisfied that the possession of the arms licence by the licensee would endanger the public peace and safety, (b) after recording reasons and being satisfied, a suspension order could be passed pending an inquiry for the revocation of the arms licence. (c) If there was no material before the authority and there was no satisfaction of the authority, in that case, no suspension order could be passed pending an enquiry. I have perused the impugned orders and I have find that in all these cases, the authorities has considered the report and had recorded a subjective satisfaction that the continuance of the possession of the weapon in the hands of the petitioner would endanger the public peace and safety and that there could be a law and order problem. The authorities have also found that the ingredients contemplated under Section 17 of the Act existed and, consequently, passed an order for the suspension of the licence and, further directed the petitioner to show cause as to why their licence should not be revoked.
(3.) IN view of the categorical subjective satisfaction being recorded by the prescribed authority in the impugned orders, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the suspension order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, it is made clear, that in view of the decision of this Court in Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and Ors. , 1998 (37) ACC 830, and in the decision of Ravindra Singh v. State of U. P. and Anr. , 2004 (1) JIC 327 (All) : 2003 (53) ALR 484, holding that an arms licence could not be suspended for an indefinite period, I direct the authority to decide the objections of the petitioners and take a final decision in the matter within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. Petition dismissed. .;