Arun Tandon - (1.) -Petitioner was granted fire arms dealer licence in respect of his shop situate at district Pilibhit by the District Magistrate, Pilibhit. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 5th August, 1993, calling upon him to show cause as to why his licence may not be cancelled and during the pendency of the enquiry his licence was also placed under suspension. The order suspending the fire arms dealer licence of the petitioner was subject-matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993, wherein an interim order dated 27.8.1993 was passed staying the order of suspension of the licence for a period of three months only.
(2.) SINCE no interference was placed by this Court on the conclusion of the proceedings initiated, the petitioner submitted his reply to the notice. The District Magistrate, after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, by means of his order dated 30th August, 1993 cancelled the fire arms dealer licence of the petitioner. In the order passed by the District Magistrate amongst other it has been recorded that on 14th July, 1993, as per the permission, petitioner obtained delivery of 15 rifles of .315 bore from Indian Air Lines, Lucknow. The petitioner was required to carry the firearms to his shop and to sell the same under the terms and conditions of the licence only after forwarding requisite information to the District Magistrate concerned. Instead of complying with the aforesaid terms and conditions of the licence and the statutory provisions, the petitioner sold 8 rifles on 14th July, 1993 and 5 rifles on 15.7.1993 to the licence holders of district Shahjahanpur through M/s. Economic Gun House, Shahjahanpur, whose licensee was Sanjay Kumar Saxena. It was found that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the licence granted in his favour, as well as the statutory provisions. It was specifically recorded that the petitioner did not inform the District Magistrate, Pilibhit about the sale of the aforesaid rifles at any point of time. The District Magistrate further recorded that at the relevant time district Pilibhit was a sensitive area wherein terrorism was on its extreme. He, therefore, held that persons like the petitioner are not entitled to be permitted to continue their business in arms. He accordingly cancelled the licence of the petitioner's shop. In the said order it was also recorded that in respect of the same offence Crime Case No. 243/93 under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 468, I.P.C. read with Sections 25, 26 and 30 of the Arms Act has also been registered against the petitioner. This order of the District Magistrate was subjected to challenge by way of appeal before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly. The appeal was numbered as Appeal No. 167/93. The appeal has also been dismissed under the order of the Commissioner dated 28.9.1993 and the findings recorded by the District Magistrate have been affirmed. The aforesaid two orders are being challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) THE only plea raised before this Court on behalf of the petitioner is that in the criminal proceedings the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charges levelled against him. He, therefore, submits that the orders passed by the District Magistrate are liable to be revoked with reference to Section 17 (7) of the Arms Act. In the opinion of the Court the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is totally misconceived. Involvement in the criminal case in the facts of the case was not the basis for cancellation of the dealer licence of the petitioner. The District Magistrate had specifically recorded that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the licence as well as provisions of the Act, he only made mention of the criminal proceedings which had also been vitiated.;