PRAREY LAL Vs. COMMISSIONER JHANSI DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the constitution, petitioner while challenged the order dated 27-3-1981 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jalaun, cancelling his firm arm licence in respect of S. B. B. L. gun no. 127 (licence no 2325), whereby the direction for taking steps for prosecuting him were also issued and the order dated 14-9-1981 passed by the commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in appeal under section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act) has, apart from the relief for quashing the same, sought for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no 2 for renewal of his licence.

(2.) THE petitioner was required to file supplementary affidavit stating the facts relating to the question for which the fee for renewal of the licence was deposited. Accordingly, petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit on 14-8-1991 stating that he applied for renewal of his licence on 8-12-1979 and deposited the renewal fee for a period of three years i.e. upto 1981. Inspite of opportunity having been given to the learned standing Counsel, no supplementary counter affidavit has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Sri R. C. Srivastava, senior Advocate contended that the orders passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jalaun as well as by the Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi, are illegal and arbitrary and in support of his contentions he submitted the fact of making of the application for renewal of the licence, for a period of three years, on 8-12-1979 by this itself establishes the bonafide of the petitioner. He further submitted that in the absence of the denial of the statement made in the supplementary affidavit filed by him on 14-8-1991, before the Additional District Magistrate, there was no material whatsoever, which could be the basis for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner committed wilful default for not getting his Iicence renewed earlier. These submissions have got substance. The reasoning as given by the petitioner was not considered in proper perspective and the finding recorded is not based on any relevant material existing before the Additional District Magistrate.