MUKHTIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the respondents cancelling his arms licence.

(2.) THE petitioner was an armed licence holder. His licence was suspended on March 11, 1981, and he was served with a show-cause notice as to why his licence be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation, the District Magistrate, Patiala, cancelled the licence under Section 17 of the Arms Act. An appeal field by the petitioner to the Commissioner, Patiala Division was also unsuccessful. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

(3.) IN the case in hand, none of the above requirements were present. It is not the case of the District Magistrate that the petitioner was prohibited from holding licence nor is it the case of the authorities that revocation of the licence is necessary for the security of public peace or for public safety. It is also not the case of the authorities that there was any suppression of material before obtaining the licence. There are also no allegations that there is any contravention of the conditions of licence or the petitioner failed to comply with any notice under sub-section 1 to deliver the licence. The District Magistrate referred to only three cases which were registered against the petitioner under the Excise Act but not under the Arms Act. Even the District Magistrate admitted that all these three cases which were registered against the petitioner ended in acquittal. It is not known from where the District Magistrate got the impression that "the petitioner's frequent involvement in such (cases) shows that he has some criminal tendency." Thus, it is clear that the order of the District Magistrate is based on no material at all. Normally, this Court will not interfere with the discretion of the authorities if it is based on some relevant material available with the authorities but here it is a case where no material is available for taking action under sub-section 3 of Section 17 of the Arms Act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned orders of the District Magistrate dated August 28, 1981, and the Appellate order dated May 4, 1982, are liable to be quashed.