ILAM SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER MEERUT DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 14th July, 1983 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dismissing the appeal of the petitioner under section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the order (Elated 4th June, 1983 (Annexure 4) passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar cancelling the licence of the gun held by the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case are few and simple. THE petitioner was holding a licence for the gun. He was given a notice as to why not the same may be cancelled THE ground for cancellation of the licence was that the petitioner was keeping company with the antisocial elements. THE petitioner submitted his reply to the same (Annexure 3) stating Chat he has never misused the gun and he has kept it for his personal safety. Be has no connection with any anti-social element nor any incident has been reported in which the gun was used by the petitioner. After considering the explanation the impugned order dated 4th June, 1983 was passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar cancelling the licence of the petitioner and the same was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut by the impugned order dated 14th July 1983.

(3.) IN the instant case no incident of breach of public peace or public safety has been cited either in the notice or in the impugned orders. Just by making a vague allegation that the petitioner was keeping company with the bad elements of the society would not be covered by the clause 'security of public peace" or 'for public safety' under section. 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act. There must be some positive incident in which the petitioner participated and used his gun which led to the breach of the public peace or public safety. IN the absence of the use of the gun by the petitioner against the security of public peace or public safety the licence of the gun of the petitioner was not liable either to be suspended or revoked. The licensing authority aswell as the Commissioner committed errors on the face of the record in cancelling the licence of the gun held by the petitioner in utter disregard of the provisions of Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act IN view of these facts the impugned orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed.