H.R.PANWAR, J. - (1.) BY the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders Annex. 3 dt. 24.04.2007 and Annex. 6 dt. 25.09.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar and the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner respectively.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an agriculturist having an agricultural land in District Sri Ganganagar. In order to protect his crops from the wild animals, the petitioner applied for a license of .12 bore DBBL Gun before the Licensing Authority. The Licensing Authority granted the license of .12 bore DBBL Gun bearing Registration No. 21/79 and on grant of license, the petitioner purchased the DBBL Gun 4543 -D/14 and got endorsed on the said license. In the year 1998, a FIR came to be lodged being FIR No. 134/98 for the offences under Section 336, 142, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar. However, the trial proceeded and ultimately the conviction was recorded for the offence under Section 336 IPC and the petitioner was released on probation by judgment and order dt. 06.02.2006 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur. According to the petitioner, merely because of registration of a criminal case for the offences noticed above, the Licensing Authority cancelled the license issued in favour of the petitioner way back in the year 1979 by the order impugned dt. 24.04.2007. The petitioner challenged the order of the Licensing Authority dt. 24.04.2007 before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by order dt. 25.09.2007. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the aforesaid crime report, there is no allegation of involvement of the gun said to have been held by the petitioner under license. The petitioner is in possession of the gun for a period of about 30 years and at no point of time the gun has been used in any of the crime. According to the petitioner it is not the case of the respondents that allowing the petitioner to keep the gun would endanger the public safety or peace. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Khem Singh v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2005 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 907, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that the Licensing Authority may revoke a license if it deems necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. The power of suspension of Arms license is necessary concomitant of power of revocation for effective control and regulation as also for the security of the public peace and 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 license holder is not sufficient for canceling the license. A similar view was taken by this Court in Saheb Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 387/2008 decided on 12.05.2008.;