DAS AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the relevant time the petitioner was holding arms -licence in forms XII, XIII and XIV which are meant for selling arms and ammunition and for keeping arms in deposit also. It appears that on 6.2.1995, Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Sultanpur who was officer -in -charge of arms also inspected the arms shop of the petitioner and thereupon after obtaining explanation of the petitioner regarding alleged deficiencies found in the arms shop, the arms license of the petitioner was suspended by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur by means of his order dated 15th April 1995. In this order, it was mentioned that at the time of inspection it was found that the petitioner was selling arms and ammunition at very high prices, he had not exhibited the rate board at the shop, he did not obtain the signatures of licensees in the register to whom he had sold arms and ammunition and the petitioner sold cartridges to such licensees who did not get their arms licences renewed and the last date for making applications for renewal had also expired. The petitioner was required to furnish his explanation. The petitioner furnished his explanation on 24.4.1995, denying the allegations made in the order dated 15.4.1995 and contended that there was no rule or law requiring the petitioner to. exhibit the rate board or to obtain signature of the licensees in the register. After his explanation the District Magistrate by means of order dated 28th June, 1995 cancelled the licences of the petitioner, against which he preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Division, which was dismissed on 8.2.1996 and now the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition challenging the orders of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner and has prayed for quashing of those orders. In these case initially the counter affidavit was filed by Tahsildar which was rejected on 20.2.1997 on the ground that he was not acquainted with the matter relating to arms dealers. Subsequently, Sri R.P. Pandey, S.D.M., Sultanpur, Officer -in -charge arms filed supplementary counter affidavit which too did not fulfil the requirement and thereupon he filed another supplementary counter affidavit dated 21st April, 1997.

(2.) THE order of cancellation dated 28th June, 1995 passed by Sri R.K. Tewari, District Magistrate. Sultanpur makes an interesting reading. At the end of this order cancelling the license of the petitioner it has been mentioned that officer -in -charge arms had personally heard the petitioner on 6.6.1995 and he had also considered the petitioner's application on the same day. The order further mentions that the officer -in -charge arms and the Addl. District Magistrate (Executive) are of the opinion that the petitioner has violated several conditions and his explanation is not satisfactory and, therefore, he is not found fit to continue to hold the licence. The order further goes to say that District Magistrate had examined the inspection note available on the file, the explanation of the petitioner and the enquiry reports and found the petitioner guilty of serious irregularities and he violated conditions of licence and, therefore, licence was cancelled. It shows that the personal hearing was done not by the District Magistrate who passed the order of cancellation of the licence but by the officer -in -charge arms. It is absolutely wrong because hearing is to be done by the same authority which ultimately has to pass the final order of cancellation of the licence. It is a queer thinking that one authority may hear the party against show cause notice and the other may pass the final order. Apart from this, District Magistrate has taken into consideration opinion of the officer -in -charge of arms and A.D.M. (Executive) who were of the view that the petitioner's explanation was not satisfactory, and he had violated the conditions of the licence. These matters have to be decided on objective considerations of the matter by the District Magistrate who has to see whether the petitioner had violated any conditions of the licence and he cannot rely upon the opinion of others for cancellation of the licence and, therefore, for these reasons alone, the orders in question are liable to be quashed.

(3.) ANOTHER ground for cancellation which has been mentioned in the order is that S.B.B.L. gun can be sold at Rs. 8,000/ - to Rs. 10,000/ - whereas the petitioner had sold one S.B.B.L. gun for Rs. 2,000/ - only. The petitioner has given an explanation for this to the effect that this S.B.B.L. gun which he sold for Rs. 2,000/ - was a defective one. Another ground taken for cancellation is that one cartridge cost Rs. 14.70 but the dealer sold it for Rs. 20/ - i.e. at a higher price. This allegation was too vague and it was not given out as to what type of cartridge was sold for Rs. 14.70. This allegation also lacks other material particulars. Another ground taken for cancellation is that the petitioner had sold cartridges to some of those licencees who did not get the licence of their arms renewed by the time fixed for renewal. Petitioner has sufficiently explained it by stating that such licensees had applied for renewal and their renewal application was pending and subsequently such licences were renewed also.