RAJU Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a licensee of D.B.B.L. gun granted to the petitioner after due enquiry. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his licence may not be cancelled on the ground of his involvement in Case Crime No. 299A of 2000, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 336, 504, 506 IPC, Case crime No. 176 of 2002, under Sections 304-A/201 IPC, Case Crime No. 284 of 2002, under Section 3/5 of Goonda Act and N.C.R. No. 75 of 2002, under Sections 323, 504 IPC registered against him. The aforesaid notice was contested by the petitioner denying the allegations levelled against him. He has also averred in his explanation that he has been acquitted in Case Crime No. 176 of 2002, under Section 304-A/201 IPC and he had no knowledge about any other cases lodged against him. He has also contended that respondent no. 3 with a view to tarnish the image of the petitioner who is a member of Bahujan Samajwadi Party and also to cause him loss and injury made fictitious complaint against him which is nothing but a partibandi. It appears from the impugned order dated 27.8.2003 that the licensing authority recorded his satisfaction that from the act and behaviour of the petitioner it is not in the interest of security of public to permit the arm license to remain with such a person and cancelled the arm licence of the petitioner vide order dated 27.8.2003. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority under Section 18 of the Act and the appellate authority remanded the matter back for fresh consideration by the licensing authority vide order dated 28.7.2003. Thereafter licensing authority vide order dated 23.12.2004 cancelled the arm license issued to the petitioner after a detailed enquiry on the ground that the petitioner had obtained the license on a wrong address with a view to conceal his criminal antecedents by playing fraud. Aggrieved against this order petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate authority confirmed the said order vide order dated 28.11.2005. It is under this circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.