Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) AN application is preferred for early hearing of the writ petition. Looking to the narrow amplitude of the issue involved, the application is allowed and the writ petition is heard finally today itself.
(2.) THE facts of the case are, that a licence for 12 bore gun was issued to the petitioner by the authority competent in the year 1966. The licence was renewed from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arms Act. However, the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh vide order Dt. 28.07.2008 denied for further renewal and also cancelled the licence on the count that the petitioner was convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 430 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 2 months' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 4000/ -. To challenge the order aforesaid, an appeal was preferred and that came to be disposed by the judgment Dt. 02.03.2009. The appellate authority accepted the appeal in part with specific finding that no adequate reason exists to cancel the licence. The appellate authority, accordingly, directed the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh, to consider the issue afresh. In pursuance to the directions given, the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh reconsidered the issue and by an order Dt. 26.04.2010 cancelled the arms licence existing in favour of the petitioner since the year 1966. The District Magistrate while cancelling the licence observed that the licencee was convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 430 IPC, therefore, the possibility of misuse of the weapon cannot be denied, To challenge the order passed by the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh Dt. 26.10.2010, the petitioner preferred an appeal and that also came to be dismissed under an order Dt. 08.11.2010. To challenge the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the District Magistrate, Hanumangarh, this petition for writ is preferred.
(3.) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the conviction of the petitioner is for an offence punishable under Sec. 430 IPC and that is having no relation with the use or misuse of the fire -arm. It is further submitted that that refusal for grant of licence could have been made only for the reasons referred under Sec. 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, but no such eventuality exists in the instant matter.;