BHISHM DEO Vs. COMMISSIONER JHANSI DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. Banerji, J. This writ petition raises an interesting question of law. The question is whether it is within the jurisdiction and competence of a District Magistrate, of a District to cancel an arms licence granted by the District Magistrate of another District. The contention of the petitioner was that the District Magistrate who issues the licence is the licensing authority and the power to revoke a licence under Section 3 of the Act vests only in the licensing authority. In other words, the argument was that the authority who issued the licence was the only authority to -cancel or revoke the licence. On the other hand the chief standing counsel contended that every District Magistrate in the District of the State is a licensing authority and he is competent to revoke and cancel the arms' licence notwithstanding the fact that it may have been issued by the District Magistrate of another District. He emphasised that when fie licence is to have its sway over the entire State, then in that event every licensing authority is empowered to exercise the powers under Section 17 (3) of the Act. He further contended that it would become an administrative problem if the District Magistrate of the District where any crime is done or where there is a breach of the terms of the license, is not in a position to take effective steps for the cancellation of the licence. He would have material before him to cancel or revoke the licence under Section 13 (3) of the Act. The position would not be the same in case the matter has to be referred to original licensing authority every time there is a necessity for cancelling or revoking the licence. This petition is being heard and disposed of at the admission stage in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XXII Rule 2 of the Rules of Court. This empowers the Court to here and finally dispose of the petition at the admission stage where the opposite party is the State, In this case the State has filed a counter affidavit and a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner. In the present case the petitioner was issued on arms licence for a SBBL gun by the order of the District Magistrate, Jalaun dated 7-1-1966. Originally it was valid up to 6-1-1969 and it was valid within the District of Jalaun. Subse quently it was extended to the whole of U. P. and Madhya Pradesh under the order of the District Magistrate dated 30-4-1969 The arms license was subsequently renewed periodically up to 31-12-1970, 1973, T976, 1979 and lastly up to 31-12-1982 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Orai on 31-12-1979. All these facts are discernible from the original licence No. 2998 produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The licence was revoked by the Dis trict Magistrate, Hamirpur vide his order dated 17-3-1981. A direction was further issued that the gun of the petitioner which was in deposit with an arms dealer at Orai was to be deposited in the Malkhana. The above order was appealed to the Commissioner of Jhansi Division by the petitioner and by the order dated 1/9/1981, the appeal was dismissed. The Commissioner Jhansi Division, Jhansi observed that the District Magistrate had cancelled the license on grounds of public security and no interference was called for with his order. It is against the above order that the present writ petition has been filed. Section 3 of the Arms Act 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Act, requires every person to have a license issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under if he acquires in his possession for carries any firearms or ammunition with him. Section 13 of the Act provides for the grant of" licenses. Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the Act authorises the licensing authority to grant a license for a smooth bore gun to be used for protection or sport or in respect of a muzzle loading gun for the purposes of crop protection. The grant of license is made subject to the provisions of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act which provide for the refusal of license duration and renewal of license and fees for licences. Thus the license can be granted by an authority known as 'licensing authority' In the Act. Section 2 (f) defines a licensing authority as follows:

(2.) (f) "licensing authority" means an officer of authority empowered to grant or renew licenses under sales made under his Act and includes the Government. " In Schedule II to the Arms Rules, 1962 the licensing authority for breach loading smooth bore gun 'is the District Magistrate in case the license is to be effective for the whole of India or for any specified area. In case the area for which the license is restricted is confined to the District then the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is also empowered to act as the licensing authority. In this case it is not necessary to consider the question of Sub-Divisional Magistrate for there is no dispute that the original licensing autho rity in this case was the District Magistrate of Jalaun. 'district Magistrate' has been defined both in the Act and in the Rules Both are inclusive definitions. The definition in Section 2 (d) of the Act does net lend any assistance as it refers to the Commissioner of Police where such an officer has been appointed. In Rule 2 (f) of the Rules the 'district Magistrate 'includes' in relation to any District or part thereof, an Additional District Magistrate or any other officer specially empowered in this behalf by the Government of the State concerned". Reference may also be made to the definition of 'authority' or 'officer' in Rule 2 (c) of the Rules. 'authority' or "officer" means except where otherwise specifically provided in these Rules the District Magistrate or such other officer as may from time to time be notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government. " It is clear from the above that the District Magistrate in each District is the licensing authority for the grant of an arms license for a single barrel or double barrel smooth bore gun. The District Magistrate hi his discretion could grant the license either for the whole of India or a State or for a part of the State of even for the District. In the present case the original license granted was to be effective in the District of Jalaun only but subsequently in 1969 it was extended to Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. It is therefore, clear that the licence for this weapon could only be issued by the District Magistrate and not by any other authority under the Act. The power to revoke the license is granted The relevant provisions may be quoted here:- under Section 17 of the Act. "17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences - (1) The licen sing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose, require the lice ace holder by notice in writing to deliver up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) The licensing authority may, by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence, - (a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or (c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material infor mation or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for: or (d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or (e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice uuder sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver up the licence. " The licensing authority has also been given power to revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof. The licencing authority is required to record in writing the reasons for suspension or revocation of the licence. The autho rity to whom the licencing authority is subordinate may by order in writing suspend or revoke a licence. Similarly a power has also been given to Court while convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under the Act or the rules made thereunder to suspend or revoke the licence. A power of suspension or revocation of the licence has also been given to the appellate Court or the High Court in exercise of its powers. The Central Government has also the power to suspend or revoke all or any licences granted under this Act throughout India or any part thereof. On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section the holder of the licence has to surrender the licence without delay. It will thus be seen that the power to revoke a licence has been granted to the licensing authority. The licensing authority has to satisfy himself that one of the clauses (a) to (c) of Section 17 (3) or any provisions of sub-sections (4) to (9) is applicable. In the present case the order of the Commissioner shows that the licensing authority exercised the power to revoke the licence under Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act. Great emphasis was laid on the use of the article 'the' in sub section (3) of Section 17 before the words 'licensing authority', By this it was urged that it ought to be the licensing authority who had granted the licence. It appears to me that no such emphasis can be laid on the article 'the' before the words 'licensing authority' in sub-section (3) of Sec. 17 for the reason that the article 'the' had to be used in a grammatical sense at the commencement of this sec tion. If the intention of the legislature was that the power to revoke vested only in the licensing authority who bad granted the licence, originally the legislature would have made it clear by saying "the licensing authority who had granted the licence may revoke the licence. " It is not permissible to inter pret statutory provisions by reading words or phrases which are not there. One of the canons of the interpretation of the statutes is that it has to be seen as it is and the question of harmonious construction does not arise unless there is some contradictory indication. In the present case it has been seen that every District Magistrate throughout the Indian Union is a licensing authority under the Arms Act. Every licensing authority under Section 17 (3) is empowered to revoke a license. If his powers were restricted to those cases where he had granted the licence as District Magistrate the statute would have made a pro vision or restricted or curtailed his powers accordingly. There is nothing in the Act which would indicate that the power to revoke lay only in the licensing authority who had originally issued or granted the licence. Reference was made to the provisions of Sections 19 to 24 of the Act to see that if a licensee was found abusing of the terms of the licence or using it for any unlawful purposes he could be dealt with under any of the pro visions of Sections 19 to 24 of the Act without recourse to the revocation of the licence. The emphasis was that these were the powers available to the District Magistrate of another district who was not the original licensing authority. I do not find any merits in this contention for these sections is Chapter IV pertain to specific matters and this can be done in appropriate cases. None of these provisions have anything to do with the revocation of licence. The power to demand production of licence, arrest of persons conveying arms under suspicious circumstances deposit of arms on possession of licence ceasing to be lawful or even search and seizure by a Magistrate are for specific purposes and are granted net only to the licensing authority but to a variety of officers under these provisions. In Section 19 the power is given to a police officer; in Section 20 to any Magistrate any police officer or any public servant or any person employed or working upon a railway aircraft vessel or arty other means of conveyance. The powers under Section 21 can be exercised by the District Magistrate those under Sections 22 and 23 by any Magistrate Therefore, the contention that in case a license who is residing in another district cannot be dealt with under the provisions of Section 17 (2) but only under the provisions of Section 19 to 24 is not correct, The powers under Sections 19 to 24 can also be exercised by the officers of the District where the license was originally granted. These are additional powers than the one granted under Section 17 (3) of the Act, Reference was also made to second proviso to Rule 52 (2) and Rule 54 (2 ). In the second proviso to Rule 52 (3) it is provided that where the licens ing authority is other than the State Government the licensee may, if he changes his place of residence, produce the licence or arms or both for inspections before the licensing authority of the place of his new residence to which the licencees may have shifted after the grant of licence. This is for the purpose of inspection of the arms. Rule 54 pertains to the renewal of licence. If a licence is granted by the licensing authority of one district and the licensee permanently shifts to another district then in that event on occasion of each renewal of the licence the licensing authority who had originally granted the lincence has to be intimated. These pertain to ad ministrative matters. Otherwise the licensing authority of the district which granted the licence will have no way of knowing as to where the licence has been renewed. These provisions do not spell out a case that the power to revoke a licence vests only in that authority who granted the licence, Rules 52 and 54 pertain to the grant of original licence and the renewal of licence respectively. These do not effect the revocation of the licence. As seen above I do not find any provisions in the Act or Rules which restricts the power of revocation of licence to the original licensing authority. The contention that the arms licence could only be cancelled or revoked by the authority which originally granted the licence is to my mind wholly untenable. The contention raised by the learned counsel in this regard must, therefore, be rejected as devoid of merits. Before I refer to the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner a reference may be made to sub rule (1) of Rule 52, It reads: "52 Form of licence (I) A licence in Form II Form III, Form III-A From IV From V or Form VI, if granted for more than a year to a person other than a bona fide tourist as defined in Section 10 (1) (b) of the Act, shall be in book form and shall contain the latest photograph of the licence. " A persual of the original licence which was produced before me shows that it was drawn up on brittle hand made paper in which the various initials of the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate indicating the renewals are shown from time to time. It is in a faded and disfigured condition. The requirements of the licence being in a book form cannot be over-emphasised. Any person who has been issused an arms licence is supposed to carry the licence with him when he is moving with or is possessed of the weapon. The licence issued in the form as in the present case will perish in no time because of the vagaries of the whether in this country. It would be problem of the licensee to Keep it in a proper condition, Such a piece of paper would not be durable, The licensee in the present case appears to have pasted the licence on another sheet of paper for its protection. Such an important docu ment as this, requires to be in a book form. It is not understood why such an important document should not be in the form as is required under the Rules. It is time that there is a full compliance of the requirement of Rule 52 in this respect. The other point raised by the learned counsel was that allegations were made that the petitioner was helping dacoits in the region with his weapon and ammunition. Learned Counsel stated in the rejoinder affidavit that a case had been started against him under Section 216 I. P. C. in this respect and he had been acquitted. Consequently the plea of which the licence was sought to be cancelled was no longer there. A true copy of the order which is annexed to the rejoinder affidavit as Annexure R A-1 appears to be an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hamirpur in case No. 520 of 1981. No specific date of the order is mentioned although it is typed to be of January, 1982. There is no reference any where in the order of the District Magistrate or of the Commissioner about any such case against the petitioner. There is nothing in this connection in the writ petition either. It only finds' place in the rejoinder affidavit. I do not see how this matter can now be considered. If the case was pending it should at least have been mentioned in the writ petition and in the impugned order. I have perused the order of the Commissioner. Annexure 4 and I do not find any manifest error of law therein to call for any interference in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution this petition is accordingly dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs. .