USMAN ALI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 8/10/2020 passed by learned District Magistrate, Nainital in Case No.51/13/2017-18 State Vs. Usman Ali, whereby, the arms license of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the order dtd. 5/6/2024 passed by learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital in Appeal No.3/2/2020-21 Usman Ali Vs. State, whereby, the said appeal was dismissed affirming the impugned order dtd. 8/10/2020.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer in gold jewellery for more than twenty years within the State of Uttarakhand and also is an arms license holder of two licensed weapons i.e. one license No.2691/G2/Haldwani 2 Bore Cartridge weapon No.27430 I.D. No.0470046132015 and one license No.3665/G2/Haldwani/2011 Revolver No.3969 dtd. 6/1/2012 I.D. No.0470029472016. A show cause notice dtd. 28/8/2018 under Sec. 17 of the Arms Act in Case No.51/13/2018 was sent to the petitioner by the learned District Magistrate, Nainital stating report given by the SHO Banhanpura dtd. 31/7/2018 that the petitioner, who is an arms license holder of above mentioned two licensed weapons, is having dispute with his wife and both the sons regarding partition of property, alienation of property and possession of revolver and other family disputes, due to these instances there is a possible misuse of using the licensed weapons, which may be used to commit a cognizable offence. Petitioner was summoned on 11/10/2018 to give a reason as to why his arms license should not be revoked/cancelled. Petitioner filed his reply and further clarified that he has been a license holder since 2011 and 2012 and never misused the license nor threatened any member of his family with the licensed weapon and there is no pending case against him. The matrimonial discord between the petitioner and his wife have been resolved due to involvement of some well wishers and they have signed mutual agreement dtd. 26/10/2018 and settled their differences. Further a mutual settlement agreement has been signed between the petitioner and his two sons namely Zeeshan and Imran on 16/12/2019. Learned District Magistrate, Nainital was not satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner and cancelled the arms license of the petitioner on 8/10/2020. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal No.3/2/2020-21, which was dismissed and the order dtd. 8/10/2020 was affirmed. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court by challenging both the impugned orders.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the complaint of petitioner's wife regarding her matrimonial dispute, there is nothing on record to show that the license of arms granted to petitioner has ever been misused. Therefore, revoking the license of petitioner on ground of presumption that the petitioner is having matrimonial dispute with his wife and there is chance of misuse of arms cannot be made out a ground for revoking the license of the petitioner. He further submits that the daughter of petitioner was abducted in the year 2013 and there is possibility of future threats that loom over the petitioner, his family members and his business, therefore, it is necessity of the petitioner to have arms in order to protect his family and business for any imminent threat.