RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER LUCKNOW DIVISION LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and the order dated 1.7.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Hardoi, as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to the writ petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted arms licence. On the basis of FIR relating to case crime No. 91 of 2002 under section 304-A, I. P. C. lodged against the petitioner, a show-cause notice was issued by the District Magistrate, Hardoi as to why the licence of the petitioner shall not be cancelled, to which the petitioner tendered his reply but without considering the reply of the petitioner, the District Magistrate, vide order dated 1.7.2005, cancelled the licence of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, who, vide order dated 13.12.2006, dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole reason for revoking the licence vide order dated 1.7.2005 is that a case crime No. 91 of 2002, under sections 304-A, I. P. C. was lodged against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid case by the Trial Court and as such, the grounds which are mentioned in section 17 (3) of the Arms Act are not at all attracted in the case of the petitioner and the petitioner has not contravened any of the conditions as enumerated in the licence and as such the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority is illegal and legally not sustainable.