JASWANT SINGH TYAGI S/O MITHAN SINGH TYAGI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 20.04.2017 passed by learned writ court declining to interfere with the order passed by Commissioner Raipur Division, Raipur.

(2.) Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that the appellant has been granted Arms license for a fire arm (English Gun bearing No.10558 having licence No. 19898/12/74) in the year 1974 by the competent authority. A Show Cause notice was issued to the appellant for cancellation of license on 06.04.1991 and on the same date, another letter for suspension of the said Arms license was also issued to him. Show Cause notice was replied by the appellant on 18.04.1991 and thereafter, considering all the material available on record, the District Magistrate, Durg vide order dated 01.08.1997 passed an order of cancellation of Arms license of the appellant and was intimated with a copy of cancellation of license by the Office of District Magistrate, Durg vide order dated 05.08.1997.

(3.) The appellant has challenged the order of intimation before the Commissioner, Education Division, Raipur on the grounds mentioned therein. The Commissioner after hearing the parties, vide order dated 07.04.2000, dismissed the appeal by a detailed order after examining the reasons assigned in the order of cancellation order dated 01.08.1997 and the ground raised by the appellant in his plea. The order of commissioner rejecting the appeal of the appellant vide order dated 07.04.2000 was challenged before the High Court in a Writ-Petition-670/2002 which also came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 20.04.2017. The order of writ court is under challenge in this appeal on the grounds that cancellation of license was on vague allegations, there was no satisfaction recorded by the licensing authority before cancellation of the arms license granted to him; there is no allegation of provocation of any provision under Arms Act; the appellant was acquitted in all cases alleged on him with respect to the theft cases of two wheelers, there was no instance available in the police record that the appellant was endangering security of public peace or safety and also that he was not afforded any opportunity to file rejoinder before the writ court.