RAVI KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. D M PRATAP GARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. N. Gupta, J. The petitioner holds a licence of SBBL gun No. 19792. The District Magistrate, Pratapgarh who is the opposite party No. 1 to the writ petition, has issued a notice dated 26-9-96, under Section 17 (3) of Arms Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled. The opposite party No. 1 has not suspended the licence and yet in the notice, it has been directed that the petitioner shall deposit the arm immediately at the Police Station against which this writ petition has been preferred.

(2.) SINCE the licence of the petitioner has not been suspended the District Magistrate Pratapgarh has no jurisdiction to pass an order requiring the petitioner to deposit his arm at the Police Station. The District Magistrate is supposed at least to be aware about this elementary matter relating to Gun licence. In these circumstances, the show cause notice date 26-9-1996 is quashed so far it relates to the direction for deposit ing the arm at the Police Station. However, rest of the notice shall continue to be opera tive.