MUNNI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS questions involved in these two writ petitions are identical, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. The question of law is whether on the death of the person, holding an arms licence and after surrender of the fire -arm, the same is liable to be forfeited to the Government on expiry of the stipulated period even though application for arms licence has been made by a legal representative of the deceased licence holder and the same is pending.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the point the relevant facts of the two cases may briefly be stated as follows. In CWJC No. 13068 of 1996 the fire -arm licence stood in the name of Manager Singh, the father of the petitioner. After Manager Singh died on 15.6.90 the gun was deposited with Shashi Shastragar, Bhabhua, an arms and ammunition Dealer on 24.7.90. It is said that such deposit was made by Sheo Murti Singh, brother of Manager Singh and, thus, uncle of the petitioner. It is said that deposit was made by Sheo Murti Singh as the petitioner being a patient of paralysis was unable to move. According to the petitioner, his cousin Uday Pratap Singh, son of the said Sheo Murti Singh, applied for arms licence, with his consent, and the same was granted to him on 17.12.92. The petitioner also after recovering from the ailment applied for the licence on 19.3.94. Earlier, after the licence was granted to his cousin Uday Pratap Singh on 29.12.92 the petitioner had filed an application that the gun in question may be released to him. An order of forfeiture of the gun however was passed in the meantime on 17.12.93. The petitioner challenged the forfeiture by way of writ petition, CWJC No. 11659 of 1993, in this Court. On 8.1.96 the order of forfeiture was set aside by the Court and the petitioner was asked to appear before the District Magistrate and file show cause. He accordingly filed show cause. By the impugned order dated 3.10.96 the District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabhua) has rejected the show cause and reiterated the order of forfeiture. Copy of the said order has been marked as Annexure -7 to the writ petition. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said order and a direction to keep the order in abeyance till the disposal of the application for grant of arms licence filed by him so that after the licence is granted, the gun may be returned to him as its owner.

(3.) MR . Krishna Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in CWJC No. 291 of 1997 and Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner in CWJC No. 13068 of 1996, submitted that the District Magistrate had no authority to pass an order of forfeiture during pendency of the application for licence. While Mr. Sahay tried to persuade the Court that the patitioner had good reasons for not making the application on account of his ailment within the prescribed period, Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh submitted that Awadhesh Singh, being grandson of the licence holder, was fully competent to apply for licence as legal representative of the deceased and since he had applied for licence within the prescribed period, the District Magistrate committed error in passing the order of forfeiture on the ground that no application for licence had been made. It may be mentioned here that although the date of application for licence filed by Awadhesh Singh has not been disclosed by the petitioner, from the counter affidavit of the respondents it appears that the application was made on 14.4.89 i.e. after the expiry of the prescribed period of one year. In view of the large question involved in the case, I do not want to go into the side question as to whether the application was made within time or not. However, as indicated above, it is an admitted position that the petitioner or any other son of the licence holder has not till date made any application for licence.