Satbir Singh vs Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another

CM No. 4694/2011 (delay)

For the reasons contained in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

LPA 215/2011

The Appellant was issued Arms License by District Magistrate, Hansi, Haryana. The said license was registered with the Licensing Authority in Delhi on 16th August, 1990 and the area of validity was extended to all over India.

In 2004, information was received from SSP, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, that the Appellant Satbir Singh was found involved in FIR No. 131/04 u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. It was also alleged that the licensed weapon of the Appellant was used in the said incident causing death.

The Licensing Authority after considering the contentions of the Appellant vide order/letter dated 7th November, 2008 cancelled the arm''s license of the Appellant. Appeal filed u/s 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 was also dismissed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi vide order dated 25th August, 2010. By the impugned order dated 17th January, 2011, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the licensed weapon, at the relevant time, was deposited with a arm''s dealer and the Appellant at the time of the alleged incident on 25th July, 2003 was under medical treatment in Lok Priya Hospital, Ghaziabad. He had been diagnosed with Hip Joint Fracture.

The aforesaid contention of the Appellant has been duly considered in the order dated 25th August, 2010, passed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

I find that the Appellant''s licence had been cancelled on the ground that he had been found to have been involved in criminal case in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and had not informed the Licensing Authority about his involvement in this case. In view of this, Licensing Authority had held that he is unfit to hold an arms licence. The Appellant has defended himself, stating that he had been falsely implicated in the said case and that he had been acquitted by the trial Court. However, in this regard it is pertinent to observe that the acquittal has come about on account of the fact that prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Further, of significance is the fact that the concerned Inspecting Officer in the said case had also failed to send the fire arm and the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased for comparison to the FSL. It must also be kept in mind that the Appellant is charged with a serious offence and, therefore, it is natural on the part of the Licensing Authority to be apprehensive about the Appellant conduct. With regard to the submissions that the Appellant could not have been involved as he had been confined to bed on account of injury, it needs to be mentioned that this is for the competent Criminal Court to consider. As far as the issue of an arms licence is concerned, it is absolutely essential that the Licensing Authority is satisfied that the person who is seeking a license is suitable to hold an arms licence. In the present case, the Licensing Authority has passed the impugned order after considering all aspects of the case and I find no reason to interfere with it. The appeal is dismissed.

This Court while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned with the decision making process and not the decision on merits. The relevant facts and circumstances have been taken into consideration by the authorities concerned. The factum that the Appellant was acquitted has not been disregarded but has been given due consideration. It has been observed in the order dated 25th August, 2010 that the licensing authority has to be satisfied that a person who is issued the arms licence is suitable to hold the licence. There is relevant and cogent material which has been noticed and referred to by the authorities. The order passed by the authorities under Arms Act, 1959 cannot be said to be perverse or illegal which requires interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.