RAM NARAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER MEERUT DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner held licence no. 342/May/1972 for gun No. 86470. The petitioner is a resident of village Sapanawat, Police Station Pilkhuna, Tahsil Ghaziabad, District Meerut. It appears that the petitioner was involved in a case under Sections 395/ 397 IPC but he was acquitted by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut through his judgment dated 17-4-1975 (Annexure 1 attached with the writ petition). In connection with that case the petitioner's gun and its licence were taken in custody by the police. After acquittal, the petitioner prayed for return of his gun. He was intimated that the licence had already expired, hence on the production of renewed licence he would get his gun. The petitioner applied for renewal of his licence (See Annexure V attached with the writ petition). The prayer of the petitioner was refused by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Ghaziabad through his order dated 4-6-1975 (See Annexure CAI attached with the counter affidavit). It appears that the order dated 4-6-1975 was communicated to the petitioner through an order of the Additional District Magistrate (Executive), Meerut dated 30-6-1975. Against the order dated 30-6-1975 the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner Meerut Division and the same was rejected by him through his order dated 21-11-1975 (Annexure VIII attached with the writ petition). Thereafter a review application was filed which was also rejected by the Commissioner through his order dated 5-1-1976 (See Annexure VII attached with the writ petition). Aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner and that of the Additional District Magistrate (Executive) dated 30-6-1975 as well as the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meerut, dated 4-6-1975, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the refusal of the licence by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 4-6-1975 was without affording any opportunity to the petitioner hence the same deserves to be quashed. It has also been suggested that the licensing authority has misread the judgment of the Criminal Court and has arbitrarily held the petitioner as not a bonafide person to hold a gun licence.

(3.) WHEN I heard this case on the last occasion I was feeling that the writ petition should be dismissed on the technical ground that the petitioner had been negligent but during the course of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that he owns a gun which is rusting due to the wrong and illegal order passed by the licensing authority, and he took time to take appropriate steps to cure the defect. The time was granted and thereafter the petitioner prayed for quashing the order dated 4-6-1975 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.