SATPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathur, J. A. large number of writ petitions have been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to seize the fire-arms of the petitioners and not to compel or direct them to deposit their fire-arms. Two such petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) IN writ petition No. 29514 of 1994 the case of the petitioner is that he is resi dent of district Shahjahanpur in the State of U. P. and he was granted a licence for a. 12 bore DBBL gun by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Deemapur, Nagaland on 30-10-91 and thereafter he purchased a gun from a arms dealer of Kanpur. A news was published in a daily newspaper that the police officials of district Shahjahanpur had found that many persons had obtained forged arms licences purporting to have been issued by the authorities in the State of Nagaland. Thereafter the local police was putting pressure upon the petitioner to deposit his gun. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Station Officer of PS. Tilhar district Shahjahanpur wherein it is averred that a thorough enquiry had been made. . . . . and it was revealed that many people had acquired fire-arms and were keeping the same on the strength of forged arms licences which purported to have been issued by the authorities of State of Nagaland. It is as serted that the petitioner is resident of Shahjahanpur and he never resided or car ried on any business or occupation in Nagaland nor he was granted any arms licence there. A gang was operating which has manufactured forged arm licences which purport to have been issued in the State of Nagaland. Though the copy of the counter affidavit was served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner on 30-3-95 but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed.

(3.) SO far as the writ petition No. 30032 of 1994 is concerned, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State though one month time was granted on 20-9-94. How ever as a period of more than two years has elapsed and similar controversy has already been decided by me, I do not consider it proper to grant any further time to the State for filing counter affidavit. The question whether a Deputy Commissioner of the State of Nagaland can grant a fire-arm licence which will be valid in the State of U. P. despite the fact that an endorsement to the effect that it is valid in "all India" has been mentioned therein, has been con sidered by me in Pravesh Kumar v. District Magistrate, 1995 ACC 312 : 1995 JIC 804 (All ). After considering the provisions of of Arms Act and the Rules made there under, it has been held that a Deputy Com missioner has no authority to issue a fire arm licence which may be valid for whole of India and that the fire arm licences issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Nagaland are wholly invalid in the State of U. P. It has been further held that the police in the State of U. P. is entitled to seize the fire arms of all such persons who are holding the arms on the strength of licences granted by the Deputy Commissioners of the State of Nagaland.