HARI RAM BHARGAVA Vs. THE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a police constable in M.P. police, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Challenging the order dated 17 -7 -1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Banda, cancelling the gun license of the petitioner and also he order dated 5 -9 -1988 passed in appeal there against by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, and has prayed for quashing the same. The brief facts relating to the controversy involved in the petition are that a 12 -bore D.B.B.L. Gun of the petitioner covered under licence No. 3978 was stolen in the night in between 28/29 -8 -1983 while he was sleeping at the residence of one Sri Ram Swaroop Dubey, M.P. The gun was subsequently, with the efforts of the police, restored to the petitioner but the incident became the cause for cancellation of his gun license. The District Magistrate, Banda, on 17 -7 -1984 passed the order cancelling the said license the petitioner, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and without giving him any show -cause notice, taking shelter of a decision of this Court in C.P. Sahu v. State of U.P., 1984 AWC 141 The petitioner came to know about the cancellation when he went for depositing the fee for renewal of his licence on 26 -12 -1986 on which date his gun was taken in to custody by the police. He applied for a certified copy of the order of the District Magistrate dated 17 -7 -1984 on 30 -12 -1986 and filed an appeal after obtaining the same on 20 -1 -1987 together with an application and affidavit explaining the circumstances for not filing the appeal earlier. The Commissioner rejected the appeal on 5 -9 -1988. These two orders are the subject -matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the affidavit filed before the Commissioner he clearly stated that the copy of the order of cancellation dated 17 -7 -1984 was not issued to him and he had no knowledge regarding the same. He came to know about the same only on 26 -12 -1986 when he went to deposit the fee for renewal on which date his gun was taken into custody by the police. He then applied for a certified copy on 30 -12 -1986 and after obtaining the same, filed the appeal on 20 -1 -1987. These facts were not denied before the Commissioner.