AUSAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ETAWAH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, filed in February, 1968, challenges an order passed by the DM of Etawah on 31 -12 -1967, cancelling the licence granted to the petitioner in September, 1966 to sell muzzle -loading guns and ammunition at Bidhuna, as well as the subsequent order passed by the Commr. of Allahabad on 9 -2 -1968, rejecting the petitioner's appeal against that cancellation. The petitioner was running an arms and ammunition shop in Bidhuna (Distt. Etawah) in partnership with a certain Sadho Singh upto the year 1966 under a licence granted by the Govt. But in January 1966 the shop was raided by dacoits and guns and cartridges were stolen and Sadho Singh was murdered. The DM thereupon felt that the shop was in an unsafe locality and should no longer be permitted to continue there with the result that on 19 -2 -1966 an order was passed directing the petitioner to shift his business to Etawah. This order was complied with in the month of March, 1966, after the petitioner had succeeded in arranging for proper accommodation in Etawah. Later on, the petitioner was able to find a new site for his shop in Bidhuna, next to the Tahsil Headquarters, the post office and the police station; and he thereupon applied for another licence to sell only muzzle -loading guns and ammunition there which was duly granted on 22 -9 -1966. Thereafter he was running two shops under two separate licences, one at Etawah and one at Bidhuna. On 31 -12 -1967 the impugned order was passed, cancelling the Bidhuna licence, without giving the petitioner any opportunity whatsoever to show cause against the proposed action. This order (Annexure E) gives no details, but merely states that "the continuance of Messrs Yadav Arms Stores, Bidhuna, an ammunition dealer at Bidhuna, distt. Etawah, is not found desirable in the interest of public peace and security." The order passed by the Commr. on the petitioner's appeal against the cancellation of his licence, however, suggests that the basic cause of the cancellation was the dacoity that had been committed at the Bidhuna shop in January 1966. Reference was made by the Commr. in his order to certain remarks made by the District Judge in the trial arising out of that dacoity; and it was further pointed out that Bidhuna was a small qasba, surrounded by vast rural areas, where dacoit gangs were very active, and the force available at Bidhuna was not sufficient to ensure security.

(2.) The impugned order of the DM can obviously not be allowed to stand, in view of the fact that it was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. And even the reasons that have been put forward by the Commr. in his appellate order to justify the cancellation do not appear to be sustainable, for the adverse remarks made by the District Judge have been expressly dissented from by a Bench of this Court in Govt. Appeal No. 1520 of 1967, dt. 17 -7 -1970 while the reference to the lack of security in the shop at Bidhuna completely loses sight of the fact that the petitioner was no longer carrying on his business in the original shop that was raided by dacoits in January, 1966, but had shifted to another shop just next to the police station Bidhuna.

(3.) In the counter -affidavit that has been filed in this case the stand taken is that the petitioner had only been allowed to continue to run his shop at Bidhuna as a purely temporary measure, because he could not find suitable accommodation in Etawah in a hurry. This plea, however, is based on a complete misapprehension of the true facts of the case. No doubt, the petitioner was allowed to keep on his original shop in Bidhuna for a short while until he could make proper arrangements for a shop in Etawah; but that temporary expediency came to an end in March 1966, when the petitioner shifted his business to Etawah. After that the petitioner was able to find a more suitable site for an arms shop in Bidhuna, just next to the police station, and accordingly made a separate application for the grant of a fresh licence, which had nothing to do with his earlier Bidhuna licence. The grant of the new licence at Bidhuna to the petitioner in September 1966 was an entirely independent act and can, in no way, be construed as a mere temporary permission to carry on the earlier Bidhuna shop. The earlier business had been shifted to Etawah and the new licence was for a fresh business in Bidhuna, at a different site from the old shop. This writ petition is allowed with costs, the impugned orders of the DM and Commr., dated 31 -12 -1967 and 9 -2 -1968, being quashed.