Sambit Padhi vs State Of Odisha And Others

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Parija, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is seeking direction upon the authority for renewal of his arms licence bearing no.06/2019. The renewal has been refused by order dated 28th March, 2023. Text of the order is reproduced below.

“The Collector & DM, Khordha has been pleased to cancel the Arm license bearing No.06/2019, Khordha issued in favour of Sambit Padhi S/o-Himanshu Mohan Padhi At-BDA Colony, BJB Nagar, P.S.-Khordha Model, Khordha basing on report of Superintendent of Police, Khordha for the involvement of the licensee in Khordha Model P.S. Case No.350/2022, U/s-379/411/413/ 120(B)/34 IPC/21 OMMDR Act and for which the renewal of Arms Licensee was not recommended by S.P.,Khordha.

This Order shall have immediate effect on the date of issue.”

He submits, it is true that his client is an accused person in Khordha Model P.S. Case no.350 dated 16th July, 2022. By order dated 25th July, 2022 his client was enlarged on bail. During the time he had possession of the arm under the licence, he had never misused it. Reasons exist, for which he had applied for the licence to possess the arm. Those reasons still exist. He relies on order dated 3rd March, 2022 by a learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition no.11343 of 2019 (Pawan Kumar Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh), paragraph-6 reproduced below.

“6. Having gone through the impugned order dated 05.07.2018, this Court is of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed for the reason that the impugned order does not record any reason as to how the registration of a criminal case alone would disentitle the petitioner for renewal of the licence. It is true that the Licencing Authority has the discretion not to renew the licence but while doing so, the mandate of 1998 (1) MPLJ 537 Writ Appeal No.1295 of 2021, order dated 13.01.2022 Writ Petition No.20446 of 2018, order dated 21.02.2022 Section 14 has to be kept in mind. This Court in the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has clearly held that licence cannot be rejected on the grounds outside Section 14. A perusal of the scheme of the Act, particularly, Sections 14, 15 and 17, nowhere suggests that the renewal of licence can be refused only on the ground of registration of a criminal case. Sub-section (7) of Section 17, however, says that even the renewal of the licence can be refused or the application for grant of licence can be rejected, if the person concerned is convicted by the Court. The same, admittedly, is not the case.”

(emphasis supplied)

Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy of statutory appeal. Mr. Parija submits in reply, the rejection is without reason and there should be interference.

Facts are, inter alia, petitioner stands accused in a criminal case, of being in possession of stolen goods. Charge sheet has been filed. In the circumstances, Court thinks fit to direct petitioner to obtain statutory remedy of appeal, as it would be continuation of adjudication on facts presented to the first authority. Petitioner will be at liberty to urge in appeal, contentions that have been urged here and recorded in this order.

The writ petition is disposed of.

…………………………………