RAM KRIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter has been heard further today. As jointly prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, I proceed to decide it finally.

(2.) THE petitioner owned a S.B.B.L. 12 Bore Gun No. 1628 covered by a licence issued to him under the provisions of the Arms Act bearing No. 5466. THE licence was valid till April 23, 1979. In the normal course the petitioner should have applied for its renewal within the prescribed period but he failed to do so as, according to him, he was suffering from some disease for the treatment whereof he had gone away to Calcutta and came back to Allahabad only after about two years. As such, he made the application for renewal of licence on January 30, 1981. He also filed an affidavit before the District Magistrate who is the licensing authority in which he mentioned the aforesaid circumstance. In paragraph 4 of this affidavit, the petitioner also stated that in case any penalty was to be imposed upon him for making the application for renewal with delay, he was prepared to pay the same. THE District Magistrate obtained a report from the Police Station Sarai Inayat Allahabad about it. In a report of November 5, 1981, submitted by that Police Station, it was mentioned that in not applying for renewal of the licence within the prescribed time, the petitioner had committed a default himself and was not a fit person to be given the licence. THE Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, exercising the powers of District Magistrate, passed an order on December 25, 1981 saying " application rejected. Issue notice under rules ". THE applicant assailed this order in Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 1981-82 before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division who is the appellate authority. THE learned Commissioner disposed of the appeal on June 14, 1982 in which he mentioned that there was an abnormal delay in filing the renewal application and that the said application was rightly rejected. Further, that he saw no justification to interfere with the order of the Additional District Magistrate. It was then that the petitioner came to this Court for relief through the present petition.

(3.) RULE 57 relates to the fees payable for the licences. In the proviso appended to sub-RULE (3) of this RULE, a provision has been made that the licensing authority may, unless the applicant satisfies the licensing authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period levy renewal fee at the rate specified in the Form. The Form spoken of is Form III prescribed by the RULEs.