JAGAT PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's licence was cancelled by order dated 23rd December, 1989. On appeal, the same was dismissed by order dated 4th June, 1982. THEse two orders have been challenged by means of this writ petition.

(2.) MR. S. K. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned orders, contended that the said orders have been passed on the basis of presumption. There were no material facts available before the authorities to arrive at a conclusion that there was any justified ground to cancel the licence. The question of likelihood is not a ground to be taken into consideration. The allegation that the brother of the petitioner was involved in a criminal case without any allegation as against the petitioner about his involvement or use of the gun in the said incident cannot be a ground for revocation of his licence simply because the petitioner was involved in proceedings under Section 107/116, Cr. P.C. which, according to him, had ended in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) SECTION 17 of the Arms Act provides for variation, suspension and revocation of a licence. The suspension or revocation can be made under subsection (3) which provides several grounds. Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of SECTION 17 provides "if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence", it may pass order in writing suspending the licence for such a period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence. Therefore, the licensing authority has Jurisdiction to revoke the licence, as in the present case, provided, according to him, it was necessary for the security of public or public safety. Admittedly, in the present case, there had been an incident of atrocities on Harijans in which the brother of the petitioner was involved. The atrocities on Harijans on account of which there have been several killings is a question of public peace, public safety or security. There is no question of denying the said fact. The licensing authority is in the field and is the best Judge who can assess the situation on the basis of materials which are before him. Such an assessment cannot be substituted by that of this Court which is in no way concerned or does not have any inkling of the situation. This Court cannot undertake any exercise to determine the facts leading to the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority on the basis of the situation then existing. It was for the licensing authority to decide the same according to his own discretion and wisdom.