Kamal Kumar Mittal vs District Magistrate, Pilibhit and others

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2007 passed by His Lordship sitting singly in Writ Petition No. 38237 of 1993 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the findings recorded by the District Magistrate qua violation of the conditions and the statutory provisions has not been questioned before the Court.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant is that the writ petition was filed challenging the order of the District Magistrate dated 30.08.1993 by which he had cancelled the license granted in Form 13 & 14 on the basis of an FIR dated 07.08.1993 as well as order dated 28.09.1993 passed by the Commissioner in appeal. With regard to charges on the basis of which license was cancelled, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that all the charges were identical and similar to the allegation in the criminal proceedings as by the judgment dated 11.12.2001 the petitioner was acquitted and found not guilty of all the charges and, therefore, findings to the contrary recorded in the proceedings for cancellation of license were unfair and oppressive. He further contends that the order of the District Magistrate dated 30.08.1993 as well as order dated 28.09.1993 passed by the appellate authority is perverse as the same does not contain any reason. The second ground on which the order is challenged is that u/s 17(3) of the Arms Act, the license can be cancelled in case petitioner had sold rifle in black market; the petitioner had not given any information about the sale to the District Magistrate; the rifles were sold to the persons residing out of the District Pilibhit and that order of the District Magistrate prohibiting sale of 5 rifles was not complied with.

It is further contended that in the present case, only Section 17(3)(d) of the Act will be applicable i.e. that the condition of the license has been contravened. The license in the present case was in Form 13 and 14 and none of the conditions mentioned in Form 13 and 14 were violated. Moreover, condition no. 20 provides that no licensee shall refuse the sell arms or ammunitions to any person, who is entitled to purchase under the Act.

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that while passing the order impugned in this special appeal, reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded in as much as petitioner was not supplied relevant documents for submitting reply to the show cause notice.

In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments:

G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, , wherein it has been held that findings to contrary recorded in departmental proceedings, are unfair and oppressive.

Shreedharan Kallat Vs. Union of India and others, , wherein it has been held that ''order passed by the courts, concerning validity or interpretation of rules, which achieves finality is binding on the Department''.

Jogeswar Behera Vs. Ghanashyam Pradhan and Another, Paragraphs 20 & 21 of the said judgment upon which reliance has been placed is thus:

In reference to the context, ''reason'' means statement of some fact and/or circumstances, real or alleged, ordinarily employed to communicate the ground, motive, cause or rationale influencing or leading, or sufficient to lead the authority to arrive at the conclusion.

The court has scrutinised the impugned order very carefully but has not been able to trace the ''reason'' for the ''conclusion'' that ''no'' injustice has been done'' to the petitioner. In the absence of reasons, it is not possible for the court to know the ground, motive, cause or rationale which influenced the authority in rejecting the complaint of the petitioner and whether there was any application of mind to the points raised in the complaint of the petitioner. It cannot be said that non-application of mind by a statutory authority while passing an order is well recognised ground for quashing the order. Therefore, the impugned order, in the opinion of the court, does suffer from the vices of non-disclosure of reasons and non-application of mind.

Chandna Impex Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, . Paragraph 8 of the said judgment upon which reliance has been placed reads thus:

Having bestowed our anxious consideration on the facts at hand, we are of the opinion that there is some merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that while dealing with an appeal u/s 130 of the Act, the High Court should have examined each question formulated in the appeal with reference to the material taken into consideration by the Tribunal in support of its finding thereon and given its reasons for holding that question is not a substantial question of law. It needs to be emphasised that every litigant, who approaches the court for relief is entitled to know the reason for acceptance or rejection of his prayer, particularly when either of the parties to the lis has a right of further appeal. Unless the litigant is made aware of the reasons which weighed with the court in denying him the relief prayed for, the remedy of appeal will not be meaningful. It is that reasoning, which can be subjected to examination at the higher forums.

All the cases cited by learned counsel for the appellant are clearly distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, hence will not apply in the present case as in the case of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujrat & another (supra), it has been held that ''findings to contrary recorded in departmental proceedings, are unfair and oppressive''. In another case Shreedharan Kallat v. The Umon of India & others (supra), the Court held that ''order passed by the courts, concerning validity or interpretation of rules, which achieves finality is binding on the Department''.

While considering case of the petitioner/appellant, His Lordship sitting singly held thus:

The only plea raised before this Court on behalf of the petitioner is that in the criminal proceedings the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charges levelled against him. He, therefore, submits that the orders passed by the District Magistrate are liable to be revoked with reference to Section 17(7) of the Arms Act.

In the opinion of the Court the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is totally misconceived. Involvement in the criminal case in the facts of the case was not the basis for cancellation of the dealer licence of the petitioner. The District Magistrate had specifically recorded that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the license as well as provisions of the Act, he only made mention of the criminal proceedings which had also been vitiated.

The findings recorded by the District Magistrate qua violation of the conditions and the statutory provisions has not been questioned before this Court. In view of the aforesaid, Section 17(7) of the Arms Act has no application. The contention raised with reference thereto is misconceived. No interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the judgment impugned in the present special appeal, it is apparent that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the license as well as provisions of the Act, as the petitioner was required to carry the firearms to his shop and to sell the same under the terms and conditions of the licence only after forwarding requisite information to the District Magistrate concerned, but he had not done so and sold 8 rifles on 14.7.1993 and 5 rifles on 15.7.1993 to the licence holders of District Shahjahanpur without informing the District Magistrate concerned. Thus, it is apparent from the record that regarding sale and purchase of guns etc. the appellant has committed irregularity as the rifles were sold to the persons residing out of the District Pilibhit and that order of the District Magistrate prohibiting sale of 5 rifles was not complied with. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that no interference is called for as findings recorded by the District Magistrate qua violation of the conditions and the statutory provisions has not been questioned before the Court.

For the reasons stated above, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the present special appeal as there is no illegality or infirmity in it. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.