YASHVIR SINGH Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, MEERUT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YASHVIR Singh son Sri Kripa Ram, petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 24th September, 1983 and 19th January, 1984 (Annexures -9 and 10 to the writ petition respectively) and order dated 13th September, 1983 (copy of which has been filed along with affidavit as Annexure in support of the amendment application), as a consequence whereof arm licence (DBBL gun) of the petitioner was cancelled in exercise of powers conferred under Section 17 Arms Act, 1959, as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioner contended that he is a resident of village Dantal near Daurala Sugar Factory on the outskirts of Meerut City. His forefathers were Zamindars and he himself was a cultivator of 376 bighas of land, which was given to Delhi Cloth and General Mills (for short DCM) under a Thekanama and some dispute arose between him and DCM and matter was pending before Supreme Court. Certain other plots of his holding were also subject matter of appeal pending before the Supreme Court arising out of orders passed under Rural Ceiling Act, which were declared as surplus treating DCM as Bhumidar. Said surplus land was allotted to Harijans illegally. It is alleged that Sub -Divisional Officer wanted to dispossess the petitioner forcibly from the said land even though appeal was pending in Supreme Court and status quo was directed to be maintained vide order dated 13.08.1982. Petitioner made complaints against the then Sub -Divisional Officer, who was acting in a high -handed manner. The then Sub -Divisional Magistrate Meerut (O.P. Dwivedi) has been impleaded as Respondent No. 3. Allegations by name have been made against the said respondent indicating that he was having ill will against the petitioner, which precipitated revocation of his firearm licence.

(2.) AS stated in the petition, firearm licence of the petitioner was valid up to 31.12.1985. Vide order dated March 4, 1983 (Annexure -6) O.P. Dwivedi, Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Meerut had sent report to the A.D.M. (Admin) Meerut that according to the complaints petitioner threatened allottees of weaker section who were under terror, and consequently he recommended for suspension of arm licence and for issuing show cause notice. Vide order dated 17.3.84, ADM (E) (Annexure 7 to writ petition) suspended license on ground of complaint of terrorizing allottees of weaker section. However, said licence was recommended to be cancelled vide order dated 16.08.1983 (Annexure CA -1 to the Counter Affidavit). On the ground that proceedings under Sections 107/116, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) were initiated by the police of Police Station Kankerkhera against which a revision was filed, which is pending, besides that petitioner was branded as quarrelsome person, who had illegally occupied valuable land under ceiling and had filed various cases in Courts by twisting facts. Petitioner submitted his reply dated 26th April, 1983 (Annexure -8) in which he made categorical allegations by name against the then Sub -Divisional Magistrate (O.P. Dwivedi). It is categorically stated that matter pertaining to ceiling was pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court, report from the concerned police station was not obtained, complaints were made on wrong facts, order suspending firearm licence was passed without giving opportunity, correct facts regarding proceedings under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. were not brought to the notice of the concerned authority, relevant facts regarding stay of Court in the criminal proceedings were concealed, the firearm in question was never misused, apart from other allegations regarding enmity with certain persons in the village and personal security in view of law and order situation. Impugned order dated 24.09.1983 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) has been passed informing petitioner that Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Meerut vide order dated 13.09.1983 had cancelled his arm -licence of 12 bore DBBL gun No. 72797/Licence No. 493.

(3.) IMPUGNED order has been challenged on two grounds only, namely - -