AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.10.2006 (Annexure P/8) passed by the respondent No. 2 in Appeal No.23/Appeal/06-07, by which the order dated 11.10.2006, passed by the respondent No.3, cancelling the arms license, has been affirmed.
In short, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of a petrol pump namely M/s. Highway Filling Station, located at Village Alonia, District Seoni, approximately 25 km from the district headquarters. The said area has been declared as a Naxalite affected area by the State Government. Considering the security risks associated with operating a petrol pump in such an area, the petitioner applied for an arms license before respondent No.
Upon due scrutiny, verification, and approval by respondent No. 1, the petitioner was granted an arms license bearing Registration No. 6/Amarpatan/02. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner lawfully purchased a 12 bore gun (No. 23898) and a pistol (No. 674447). The license was subsequently transferred and renewed by the Collector, Seoni.
It is submitted that the respondent No. 4, a resident of District Satna, holds an arms license bearing No. 3834/Nov./2001/Punjab, which is valid only within the State of Punjab. Despite this, respondent No. 4 is allegedly in illegal possession of the arms at Satna. The respondent No.4, with mala fide intention, filed a complaint before the respondent No. 3 seeking cancellation of the petitioner’s arms license, falsely alleging that the petitioner obtained the license on the basis of forged property documents. The petitioner, in fact, is a co-owner of the said property. Acting on the said complaint, the respondent No. 3, without proper verification, issued a show cause notice dated 23.02.2006 (Annexure P-2) to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 21.03.2006 (Annexure P-3) supported by relevant documents.
Subsequently, proceedings under Sections 107 and 116(3) of the Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No.
Thereafter, respondent No. 3 issued another show cause notice dated 17.07.2006 (Annexure P-4), to which the petitioner replied on 29.08.2006 (Annexure P-5). However, without conducting a proper inquiry, verification, or applying mind, in disregard to the material on record, the respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 11.10.2006 (Annexure P-6) cancelling the petitioner’s arms license under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act on the purported ground of maintaining public peace and tranquility.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the respondent No. 2 on 13.10.2006 (Annexure P-7), highlighting, inter alia, the necessity of retaining the arms license due to the location of the petrol pump in a Naxalite affected area and the consequent apprehension of threat to life and property. However, respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal at the threshold vide order dated 26.10.2006 (Annexure P-8), without proper consideration of the facts and without passing a reasoned order, thereby mechanically affirming the order of respondent No. 3.
It is further submitted that respondent No. 4 continues to reside at Satna and possesses arms under a license restricted which is valid in the State of Punjab. The respondent authorities failed to examine this material aspect and did not conduct a fair or comprehensive inquiry before passing the impugned orders. The impugned orders are thus arbitrary, non-speaking, and unsustainable in law, and are liable to be set aside. Hence, this petition.
The grounds of challenge of the petitioner are that respondent No. 2 has erred both in facts and in law in affirming the order of respondent No. 3 cancelling the arms licence and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside only on the ground of non-application of mind.
It is submitted that the respondent No. 4 has filed the complaint with mala fide intention and as a counterblast to the FIR earlier lodged by the petitioner against the respondent No. 4 and others at Police Station Satna. The complaint is based on false and vexatious allegations and has been filed to settle personal enmity.
It is submitted that the petitioner operates a petrol pump in a Naxalite-affected area and faces a genuine threat to life and property. In view of past incidents of quarrels at the premises, cancellation of the arms licence is arbitrary and unjustified.
It is submitted that the allegation regarding obtaining the licence on the basis of false declaration of property is incorrect, as the petitioner is a co-owner of the said property along with respondent No. 4. This aspect has not been properly considered by the authorities.
It is submitted that the complaint arises out of an old personal enmity between the petitioner and respondent No. 4, which has not been appreciated by the respondent-authorities, leading to an erroneous and mechanical order.
It is submitted that the respondent No. 3 has failed to conduct a proper inquiry and did not call for any report from the Superintendent of Police, Seoni regarding the petitioner’s conduct or criminal antecedents prior to passing the order dated 11.10.2006, thereby vitiating the impugned order.
The respondents have filed reply contending therein that the respondent No. 3, upon receipt of a complaint from respondent No. 4, registered Case No. 218B-121/2005–2006 (Annexure R/1). The notices were duly issued and simultaneously, a report was called for from the Superintendent of Police, Satna, vide letters dated 23.04.2006 and 23.05.2006 (Annexure R/II and R/III). In response to the notices, the petitioner submitted a reply - Annexure R/IV.
Subsequently, a report dated 30.05.2006 was received from the Superintendent of Police, Satna vide Annexure R/V. After due consideration of the allegations made in the complaint, the reply submitted by the petitioner and the report of the Superintendent of Police, Satna, the respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 11.10.2006, cancelling arms licence granted in favour of the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act.
It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law, after due application of mind, and in exercise of statutory powers. The order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity. It is further submitted that by the said order, the State Government was duly informed regarding cancellation of the aforesaid arms licence granted in the name of Kulwant Singh (Petitioner). Directions were also issued to the Officer-in-Charge, Arms Licence Section, Satna, to take appropriate action for cancellation of Arms Licence No. 9834/Nov./2001/Punjab, standing in the name of respondent No. 4, Gurpreet Singh, son of Late Shri Bhajan Singh.
From the perusal of order dated 11.10.2006 (Annexue P/6), by which the arms license of the petitioner has been cancelled, it is found that the Collector, Satna while cancelling the arms license has recorded finding that a report was obtained from the Superintendent of Police, Satna. The authority has observed that it is not necessary to examine the correctness of the claim as to whether the petitioner possesses immovable property within the district or not. The authority has recorded that as per the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Satna, there was likelihood of disputes between the complainant (Respondent No.4) and petitioner, and, in fact, disputes occurred in the past between the parties. The authority has found that there was enmity between the parties. Therefore, in the interest of public peace and safety, the authority has found it necessary that both the parties should not possess any arm licence. Accordingly, the arms licence issued in the name of the petitioner-Kulwant Singh has been cancelled by the authority in exercise of powers under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act. Simultaneously, the authority has also directed the concerned authority to cancel the license of respondent No.4-Gurpreet Singh.
The power of cancellation of an arms licence under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act must be exercised on the existence of cogent and reasonable grounds having nexus with public peace and safety. Mere existence of personal enmity or likelihood of dispute between two individuals, without any material indicating misuse of the arms licence or threat to public order, cannot constitute a valid ground for cancellation.
Section 17 (3) of the Act provides as under:-
"17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.―
(3)The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence,―
(a)if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or
(b)if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or
(c)if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or
(d)if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or
(e)if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence."
In the present case, the authority has primarily relied upon the report of the Superintendent of Police, Satna, indicating existence of disputes and enmity between the petitioner and respondent No. 4. However, there is no finding that the petitioner has misused the arms licence or that his possession of arms poses any real or imminent threat to public peace or safety.
This Court in Abdul Saleem Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2019 (3) MPLJ 332 has held as under:-
"9.On perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the licensing authority may suspend the licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke it, if it is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by the Act or by any other law for the time being in force to acquire and having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit to hold a licence. As per subsection (b), the licensing authority may suspend or revoke the licence if “it deems necessary” for “the security of the public peace or for public safety”. The licence may also be suspended or revoked if it was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information or in contravention of any of the conditions of the licence. In addition, if the licensing authority wants to vary the condition, to which notice has been issued, if not complied, it can suspend or revoke the licence under sub-section (1) of the section 17 of the Act. While passing the order of suspension or revocation, the authority shall record a reason and furnish it to the holder on demand by a brief statement unless in his/her opinion it will not be in the public interest. As per sub-section (6), the authority, to whom, the licensing authority is subordinate may also have power to suspend or revoke the licence similar to the licensing authority. The Court trying the offence, if convicted the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the Rules, may also suspend or revoke the licence but in case if the conviction is set aside in appeal, the suspension or revocation shall become void. The power of suspension or revocation has also been conferred to the appellate Court or the High Court akin to sub-section (7) of section 17 of the Act.
10.Thus, for the purpose of the case at hand and on reading the aforesaid, while exercising the power under section 17(3)(b) of the Act, the licensing authority must record its satisfaction to the effect that by an act of licensee “the security of the public peace or public safety” is on peril or going to be affected, therefore, revocation of licence is necessary.
11.The phrase “Public Peace and Public Safety” is defined in Advance Law Lexicon 5th Edition by Shakeel Ahmed Khan by which it does not mean ordinary disturbance of law and order, it is said that the public safety means safety of public at large and not safety of few persons only. The words “security of public peace” have also been defined in the Advanced Law Lexicon to mean “maintenance of public tranquility and order”. It is in reference to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sunderlal Bhardwaj v. State, reported in 1961 M.P.L.J. Note 80.
12.The word “public” is having some significance to the above said phrase as referred in section 17(3)(b) of the Act relatable to peace and safety. As per Corpus Juris Secundum, the word “public” is defined as meaning the whole body politic, or all the citizens of the state; the general body of mankind, or of a nation, state, or community; everybody; the people; the body of the people at large; the community at large, without reference to the geographical limits of any corporation like a city, town, or county. “Public” is also defined or employed as meaning the inhabitants of a particular place; all the inhabitants of a particular place; the people the neighbourhood; a particular body or section of the people; often, specifically, a clientele. The word “public”, however, does not mean everybody all the time; it does not mean all of the people in the state, or in any county or town. It does not mean all the people, or most of the people, or very many of the people of a place, but so many of them as contradistinguishes them from a few. It designates individuals in general without restriction or selection. “Public” also means of, or relating to, the government, and it may be defined as meaning owned by the public, that is, by the government or some of its sub divisions, as a public building, public Courthouse, etc. “Public” is also the term used in designating the legal character of various acts, rights, occupations, etc. that affect or belong to the collective body of a state or community. “Public” is also defined as meaning shared in or to be shared or participated in or enjoyed by the people at large; open to all; common to all or many; open to common or general use; general; open for general or common use or entertainment, as a public highway or road, a public house; not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community. Thus, affecting the security of public peace and safety, it should not affect a few but the inhabitants of a particular place because it is a synonymous of People distinguished from private."
In view of aforesaid analysis of facts and law, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 11.10.2006 passed by respondent No. 3, as well as the appellate order dated 26.10.2006 passed by Respondent No. 2, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
The impugned order is thus based on vague and general apprehensions and not on any concrete or relevant material as required under law. The same, therefore, fails to satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act. Consequently, the impugned orders suffer from arbitrariness and lack of proper reasoning and are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 11.10.2006 (Annexure P/6) and 26.10.2006 (Annexure P/8) are hereby quashed.