Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) WITH the consent of rival parties, the matter if heard finally at this stage. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders dated 5th January 2012 (Annex. 'E'), and 29th November 2012 (Annexure 'G'), respectively passed by the District Magistrate, Nagaur and Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer. The petitioner has further sought a direction against respondents for renewal of arms licence in his name.
(2.) BY order dated 5th January 2012 (Annex. 'E'), the learned District Magistrate declined restoration/renewal of the terms licence of the petitioner solely on the ground that criminal case is pending against him. On an appeal preferred by the petitioner, the learned Divisional Commissioner has upheld the said order by its order dated 29th November 2012 (Annex. 'G'). Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, has urged that the District Magistrate, Nagaur, while declining the prayer of the petitioner for renewal of licence has not assigned plausible reasons for exercising as discretion, and therefore, the said order is not sustainable. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel would contend that appellate authority has also not cared to examine the matter in right perspective more particularly in the light of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, 'Act of 1959'). Mr. Mumbhat has further urged that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be considered as a valid ground for denying the prayer of the petitioner for renewal of arms licence as the same is not an impediment within the four comers of Section 17(3) of the Act of 1959. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has place reliance on a Division Bench's decision of this Court in case of Khan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2005 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 907, wherein the Court quashed the orders passed by the competent authority revoking the arms licence solely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. The Division Bench held as under: 5. From the reading of the provision it is manifest that the licensing authority may revoke a licence if it deem necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. The power of suspension of Arms licence is necessary concomitant of power of revocation for effective control and regulation as also for the security of the public peace or public safety. Such a power has to be exercised with great circumspection. The satisfaction of the authority has to be objective and must be based upon relevant material. Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the licence holder is not sufficient for canceling the licence. A licence can be revoked under Section 17(3)(b) if the licensing authority deem it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. In absence of any finding that cancellation was necessary for public peace or public safety, such an order is liable to be quashed."
(3.) THE principle propounded in Khem Singh's case (supra) was further reiterated by this Court in case of Shiv Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2013 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 393.;