RIYAZ AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the licensing authority under the provision of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, thereby suspending the arms licence of the petitioner pending enquiry asking him to show cause as to why the fire arm license of the petitioner should not be cancelled/revoked for the reasons stated in the order impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance of some decisions/judgments in support of his contention and contended that the aforesaid provision has been considered firstly by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case reported in 1984(10) All LR 223 Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and thereafter another Full Bench in the case reported in 1985 (22) ACC 353 Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. and in the case, reported in 1991 (Supp) ACC 235 Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the effect of the aforesaid Full Bench decisions have been considered by learned single Judge of this Court in the case reported in 1998(37) All Cri. C 830 Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh wherein the learned single Judge after realising the provision has held that the question whether the licensing authority is clothed with the powers to suspend the licence in the midst of proceedings for suspension or revocation under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, was posed for consideration before another Full Bench of this Court in the case of Balram Singh v. State of U.P., 1989(1) RCR(Crl.) 505 (All.) : 1989(26) All Cri. C 31. The Court noticed therein the decisions referred to above and held: