GURADDITA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order dated 26.6.1981, Annexure P-1 vide which Additional District Magistrate, Bhatinda cancelled arms licence bearing No. 74/DM/PS Sangat of petitioner Gurditta Singh S/O Jhanda Singh as also the appellate order dated 10.8.1982, Annexure P-2 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepore Division, Ferozepore, The reason for cancellation of the licence has been spelt out in Annexure P-1 which needs to be reproduced below :-

(2.) The State wishes to defend this petition on the basis of provisions of Section 17(3)(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 , Clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the said Act clearly makes out that the Licensing Authority may suspend or revoke the licence if it may deem it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. In my considered view the facts a made out from order Annexure P.1. don not cover the case under Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act An individual dispute cannot amount to apprehension of public peace or public safety. Besides an order revoking or cancelling licence must show atleast prima facie, how the possession of a gun by the licensee would endanger public peace, the reasons alone would justify an order for cancellation of a licence. In the present case, no cegent reasons have been given by the Authority concerned. The matter was agitated before the Appellate Authority and the error committed by the original Authority was repeated. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the observations made by R.S. Narula, J. in the case Labh Singh Chattar Singh v. The Divisional Commissioner, Ambala, 1972 AIR(P&H) 122 I am in complete agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The basis on which the order was passed, in my considered view, did neither amount to breach of public peace or public safety nor apprehension of breach of public safety.

(3.) On facts as well, the petitioner has mentioned that Bachittar Singh with whom he had a dispute earlier had compromised the matter and there was no dispute in existence at the time when the impugned order was passed. The incident leading to registration of the case under Sections 107/151 Cr. P.C. occurred on 29.6.1979; whereas the impugned order Annexure P-I dated 26.6.1981 is nearly two years after the said incident. The assertion of facts as referred to above have been mentioned in paragraph 7 of the petition and in the corresponding paragraph of the written statement no denial has been made. It appears that Sub Divisional Magistrate must have taken into account the factum of compromise between the petitioner. On the facts, therefore, as well there was no justification to cancel the arms licence of the petitioners.