NAGESHWAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner has obtained a rule from the High Court asking the respondents to show cause why the notification of the State Government, No. II/A5-7050/57 pp. 6593, dated 22-8-1958, cancelling a rifle licence and a revolver licence in the name of the petitioner under Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act, should not be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. Cause has been shown by the Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The notification of the State Government dated 22-8-1958, is annexure A to? the application and reads as follows: Government of Bihar, Political Department, Police Branch. Notification, The 22nd August, 1958. No. II/A5-7050/57 pp. 6593. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (XI of 1878} read with Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, notification No. 19/1/ 58-Police (iv) dated 23rd April, 1958, the Governor of Bihar is pleased to cancel the (i) licence No. 379 of P.S. Kotwali, District Gaya, dated 7th March, 1953, for a rifle, and (ii) licence No. 103/, 19 of 1954 of P. S. Banka, District Bhagalpur, D/-"26-11-1954, for a revolver in name of Sri Nagesh war Prasad Singh of Lakhpura. P. S. Banka, District Bhagalpur with effect from the date of publication of the notification in the Bihar Gazette. By order of the Governor of Bihar, Sd. K. Ramanujam, Addl. Dy. Secy, to Government. Memo No. 17050. Bhagalpur, the 14th September, 1958. Copy forwarded to Sri Nageshwar Prasad Singh of Lakhpura, P. S. Banka, District Bhagalpur, for information. He is directed to deposit the firearms covered by the licenses mentioned in the Government notification with the Officer-in-charge of Banka P. S. or with the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bankn, within seven days from the date of receipt of this order. If he fails to deposit the fire-arms within the time-limit mentioned above, he will make himself liable to prosecution under S. 19 of the Indian Arms Act, 1878. Sd. Illegible. District Magistrate. The argument on behalf of the petitioner that the notification is illegal and ultra vires because as a matter of construction the latter part of Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act should be interpreted as conferring a general power of cancellation on the Central Government on the ground of policy or on the ground of emergency and that the power of the Central Government cannot be used to cancel the arms licence in any individual case. It was alternatively contended that if the latter part of Section 18 is not construed in this manner then Article 14 of the Constitution would be attracted and the latter part of the provisions of Section 18 of the Arms Act would violate the right of equal protection conferred by Article 14 of the Constitution. In our opinion the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded and must be accepted as correct. As a matter of construction we think that the power conferred upon the Central Government by the latter part of Section 18 of the Arms Act is a power of disarming all the inhabitants of a particular locality either on the ground of policy or on die ground of emergency or in a condition of insecurity arising in the State. The power of the Central Government cannot, therefore, be applied so as to cancel the licence of any individual in a particular case. The reason is that the power of cancellation of an individual licensee is granted by Section 18, Sub-sections (a) and (b) of the Indian Arms Act, which reads as follows:

(3.) We were informed during the hearing of this case that the petitioner has applied for the renewal of the revolver licence and the rifle licence before the proper authorities. We desire to say that it would be open to the authorities concerned to deal with the application for renewal in accordance with law.