Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that his arms licence has been suspended by an order dated 27.7.2004. THEreafter, he filed an appeal and the said appeal has been dismissed on 4.12.2008. No proceedings with regard to the cancellation of arms licence of the-petitioner in pursuance of the suspension order have yet taken place. It is submitted that arms licence of the petitioner cannot remain under suspension for all times to come. Suspension can only be temporary phase and has to be followed by a final order, which has not been done, although nearly five years have passed since the passing of the impugned order. This Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58216 of 2005 (Ajay Kumar Gupta v. state of U. P. and others) wherein, after considering the Full Bench decision of this Court in the cases of Balaram Singh v. state of U.P. and others, 1988 AWC 1481; Kailash Nath v. State of U.P., 1985 AWC 493, as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and others, 1998 All CJ 1449, has held that the arms licence cannot be placed under suspension pending enquiry. In such view of the matter, the suspension of the arms licence of the petitioner as directed by the impugned orders dated 27.7.2004 and 4.12.2008 are liable to be quashed.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, this writ petition stands partly allowed. The suspension of the arms licence of the petitioner by the impugned orders dated 27.7.2004 and 4.12.2008 are quashed. However, the respondents shall proceed to take appropriate action with regard to the cancellation of the arms licence of the petitioner in accordance with law.;