TALE SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the four writ petitions involve common questions of facts and laws, hence they are being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners filed the writ petitions assailing the respective orders of suspension of their Arms Licences granted earlier to them and against the show-cause notices issued to them to explain as to why their licences granted earlier be not cancelled. The notices indicate that the petitioners were involved in certain criminal cases and the antecedents of the licence holders were as such which warranted suspension of their licences in public interest. On the basis of the police reports the respective District Magistrates while suspending their licences directed the petitioners to surrender their Arms to the police.

(3.) Relying upon the precedents of this Court in Vinod Kumar Verma v. State of U. P., 1994 (2) ALR 30 and Abdul Aziz v. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, 1993 (11) LCD 619 it was vehemently contended that under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act the licensing authority can suspend the licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke it on being satisfied on any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act, meaning thereby that the suspension orders could be passed only for a specified period and such orders cannot be passed for indefinite period, pending enquiry or pendency of a criminal case against the licence holder.