KISHORILAL AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being dissatisfied with the order dated 23-8-86 Annexure-B, passed by the Commissioner, respondent No. 2 herein, in appeal No. 3-Arms/1985-86 affirming the order passed by the District Magistrate, Raigarh cancelling the licence granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of weapon (Gabilondoy C.M. Elgoi Bar (Espana) Cal 9 m.m. (380) LLAMA) the petitioner has visited this Court for quashment of the aforesaid orders.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner hails from Jind City in Haryana State where his family and relations reside and he holds movable and immovable properties at that place. It is also stated that he has immovable properties in the State of Madhya Pradesh at Raigarh. For the purpose of security he applied for grant of licence of a pistol to the competent authority who after being satisfied issued a valid licence bearing No. 27/S.D.M./Jind/January, 1981 which was valid upto 9-6-85. As the said licence was misplaced he could not file an application for renewal 30 days prior to the expiry of the period of licence. However, he filed an application with requisite fees for renewal before the S.D.M., Jashpurnagar who granted the renewal of the licence. Thereafter, respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Raigarh issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 30th September, 1985 asking why the licence granted in his favour should not be cancelled and pistol be confiscated. In the show cause notice (Annexure-C) it is stated that he was involved in the activities of smuggling of rice and mahua and Crime No. 46/84 had been registered against him for the offence punishable under Ss. 451 and 303 of the Indian Penal Code and rentention of weapon with him would affect the peace and tranquillity; the weapon in question was covered within the category 1-1(c) of Schedule-I (Rule 3) of the Arms Rules, 1962, and therefore, the grant of licence was improper. It was also stipulated in the show-cause that obtaining licence from S.D.M. is also contrary to Rule 3, Schedule-I (1)(c) of the Arms Rules, 1962. Petitioner filed his show-cause before the said authority wherein he has indicated the reasons for not filing his application for renewal as mandated under the Rules. As far as the prohibited arms is concerned, a stand was taken by the petitioner that he had not obtained the licence illegally as the same does not fall under the prohibited category. On consideration of the show-cause learned Magistrate passed an order vide Annexure-A directing cancellation of the licence and for confiscation of the pistol in question. On appeal being preferred, the appellate authority affirmed the order and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) No counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents.