M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN these two writ applications since common question of facts and law are involved, the same are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.6.2000 passed by respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in purported exercise of power under Section 21(3) of the Arms Act and directed for confiscation of the respective gun belonging to the fathers of the petitioners. The case of the petitioner in CWJC No. 2238/2000R is that petitioners father was holding a valid licence of a gun bearing No. 13764 under Licence No. XXXIII -XIX. Petitioners father died on 8.7.1997. Within 15 days of his fathers death petitioner filed and moved an application before the District Arms Magistrate, Ranchi for deposit and safe custody of the gun in question with M/s Ranchi Gun House, an authorised arms dealer until the gun was transferred in the petitioners name after issuance of licence to him. Petitioner deposited the arms on 25.7.1997 with M/s. Ranchi Gun House who granted to the petitioner a receipt for the same. Petitioners further case is that on 26.7.1997 petitioner made application in the prescribed form for grant of licence in his name giving all necessary particulars which was received by the Sonahatu police station on the same day and forwarded to the Inspector of Police. Petitioners application was accordingly forwarded after due recommendation of the Superintendent of Police. It is stated that without disposal of the application of the petitioner for the grant of licence and transfer of ownership of the gun the respondents passed the impugned order whereby the gun of the petitioners father was confiscated on the ground that petitioner did not take any steps for grant of licence in his name and for transfer of gun in his favour.
(3.) RESPONDENTS case in the counter -affidavit is that petitioner did not take any step either for the transfer of gun in his name or ever requested the authority for disposal of the said gun by selling the same even after a lapse of more than three years. It is stated that petitioner never filed any application before the Deputy Commissioner who is competent authority rather petitioner applied directly before the Officer Incharge. Sonahatu Police Station, who is not competent authority in such manner. However it is submitted that for the first time recommendation report was received in the office of Deputy Commissioner on 17.3.2000 from the Superintendent of Police. It is stated that petitioner became active only after receiving a notice of confiscation.;