MALKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MALKHAN Singh and Ram Hari have preferred this writ petition against the two orders dated 25-1-1981 passed by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri one in Case No. 25/1 of 1980 cancelling the gun licence of MALKHAN Singh and the other in case no. 25 of 1980 cancelling the rifle licence of Ram Hari. Both the petitioners are brothers. It appears that acting on the reports sent by local police, the District Magistrate revoked the licences of both the brothers after issuing show-cause notices to them which were duly replied. Two appeals were filed before the Commissioner by the petitioners who by his judgment and order dated 30th August, 1982, upheld both the orders of revocation of licences. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri Raja Ram Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners in detail. Counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties has been filed and I have heard Sri M. M. Chaturvedi, learned Standing Counsel. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed which has been perused. Hence this writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage as desired by the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition indicates that the basic grievance of the petitioners was to the effect that the lodging of the FIR under section 364 IPC as against the petitioner no. 1 and the order of conviction under section 302 IPC as against the petitioner no. 2 could not have been made the basis of revoking licences.. The petitioners have not laid any foundation for challenging the finding of fact recorded by the District Magistrate that the petitioner no. 1 has ceased to be a resident of district Mainpuri. Sri Yadav stated with commendable fairness that his main attempt was to get a relief insofar as petitioner no. 1 is concerned because unless and until the conviction as regards petitioner no. 2 is set aside, the grounds for revoking licence under clause (b) do exist. Therefore, Sri Yadav brought to the notice of this Court the fact that Malkhan Singh has since been acquitted in the case under section 364 IPC by a competent court, clause (b) should not and can not be permitted to be used by the District Magistrate. On the fasts and reasons stated above it is more than clear that not only clause (b) but even clause (a) was available to the District Magistrate in dealing with the case of petitioner no. 1 which clause provides that licence can be revoked 'for any reason' found by the District Magistrate as sufficient to render the licences 'unfit'.