PIRYAMBADA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. L. Yadav and D. S. Sinha, JJ. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 24-3-1985 suspending of licence of the petitioner under Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short the Act), is sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(2.) SRI S. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that a licence of firearm can be suspended under Section 17 (3) (b) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by a law to hold it, or he is of unsound mind, or if the licensing authority deems it necessary for security of public peace or for public safety, or if the licence has been obtained by suppression of material facts or any conditions of licence have been contravened. None of these conditions apply to the petitioner as neither she was prohibited by any law nor she conceded any material facts nor she was of unsound mind. As regards the condition under Section 17 (3) (b), there was no occasion in the case for any necessity for security of public peace or for public safety. The petitioner has not paid the loans she has obtained for a sum of Rs. 3,320 for construction of house and in that connection the Tahsildar submitted a report dated 11-3-85 (Annexure-2 to the petition) that her licence No. 246/2148 for a Double Barrel Gun No. 744 may be suspended that recovery may be effected. But for recovery of loan there are other process including coercive process and suspension of gun was erroneously made which was beyond the statutory provisions of Section 17 of the Act.

(3.) UNDER the circumstances, the recommendation by the Tahsildar and the impugned order was not justified and cannot be sustained.