PRATAP SINGH YADEV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. The petitioner by the present writ petition seeks a writ or direction to the respondent/State to issue an arms licence to the petitioner as applied for. Petitioner impugns the order dated 6.12.2000, passed by the Lt. Governor, who is the Appellate Authority in the appeal preferred under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appeal had been preferred against the rejection by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, Delhi of the application for grant of an arms licence.

(2.) Petitioner claims to be a person of status. He states that he owns properties in Delhi, U.P. and Harayana worth over Rs. 5 Crores. He has residential lands and is engaged in farming. Petitioner claims to be a family person having two sons and a daughter who is married. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Qazim, assails the nbn grant of licence. He submits that the non grant of licence on the ground that petitioner was engaged in farming at Faridabad and there was no genuine reasons for grant of licence. Besides a case under Section 380/411 IPC was registered vide FIR No. 321/75 P.S. Sri Niwas Puri. Mr. Qazim submits that the finding of Appellate Authority that petitioner concealed this in the application is not correct.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that the application form required the petitioner to answer the question "Whether the applicant has been convicted, if so, the offence, the sentence and date of sentence"? Petitioner had answered 'No' to it, which was correct answer, as the petitioner had been acquitted in the said case. Petitioner was not obliged to furnish particulars of the case. Mr. Qazim, therefore, submits that the Appellate Authority i.e. the Lt. Governor, who proceeded on the basis that there was material concealment by the petitioner, had misdirected him-self and misconstrued the requirements for disclosure in the application form. Learned counsel further submits that the DCP (Licensing) did not grant the petitioner a hearing and, as such, the order stands vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel next submitted that in the verification part of the application form, where the petitioner was required to answer the question "Whether arrested/involved in any criminal case with particulars"?, the petitioner had answered "not applicable". Learned counsel sought to explain this answer by stating that petitioner understood this to mean that he was required to give particulars only of pending cases. Hence he did not mention the case under Section 380/411 IPC. He submits that petitioner had said "yes" to a question "whether the petitioner had executed a bond under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.