SAHAB SINGH Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER KOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 19-10-2004, passed by District Collector, Karauli and the order dated 2-5-2005 passed by Divisional Commissioner Kota. By the former order, the learned Collector Karauli had cancelled the petitioner's arms licence. By the latter order the Divisional Commissioner has confirmed the collector's order and has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a resident of Karauli Districta district infested by the menace of dacoity. According to the petitioner, his family used to own certain stone quarries. From his childhood, his family was harassed by the dacoits and other criminals of the area. After reaching maturity, the petitioner applied for grant of arms licence. The arms licence was granted by the Collector, District Karauli. The same was renewed from time to time, after the petitioner deposited requisite fees. However, subsequently on 1-5-2000, the petitioner received a notice, wherein it was claimed that according to the Superintendent of police, Karauli, the petitioner was involved in helping dacoits and other criminals of the area. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police, karauli had written to the Collector, Karauli for cancelling the arms licence granted to the petitioner. Immediately, the petitioner replied to the said notice and denied the allegations levelled by the superintendent of Police, Karauli. Vide order dated 26-6-2000, the learned District Collector, Karauli cancelled the arms licence owned by the petitioner. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 26-6-2000, he filed an appeal before the Divisional commissioner, Kota. Vide order dated 23-6-2003, the learned divisional Commissioner, Kota remanded the case back to learned collector, Karauli directing him to consider the evidence and pass necessary orders. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, vide order dated 19-10-2004, the learned Collector, Karauli cancelled the arms licence granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 19-10-2004, the petitioner again preferred an appeal before the divisional Commissioner, Kota. However, vide order dated 2-5-2005, the learned Divisional Commissioner Kota dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 19-10-2004. Hence, this petition before this Court. necessary orders. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, vide order dated 19-10-2004, the learned Collector, Karauli cancelled the arms licence granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 19-10-2004, the petitioner again preferred an appeal before the divisional Commissioner, Kota. However, vide order dated 2-5-2005, the learned Divisional Commissioner Kota dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 19-10-2004. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) MR. Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted a plethora contentions before this court: firstly, the petitioner is a law abiding citizen, who believes in peace and tranquility in the society. However, as the petitioner has been threatened by petty criminals and the dacoits of the area, as his life and property are under threat, therefore, the petitioner needs to keep an arm weapon with him. Therefore, the arm licence should have been renewed. Secondly, the petitioner has a right to defend his life and property and considering the fact that Karauli is dacoity infested area, he has a right to have arms. Thirdly, vide order dated 23-62003, the Divisional Commissioner Kota while remanding the case back to the learned Collector, the Collector was directed to record evidence and to pass the order in accordance with law. However, the collector has not recorded any evidence and has passed the impugned order dated 19-10-2004. Fourthly, the Collector could have looked into the evidence upto 1-5-2000, i. e. the date on which the notice for cancellation of arms licence was issued. Till 1-5-2000, no adverse report existed against the petitioner. The report of criminal activities relate to the post-2000 period. Therefore, the same could not be considered by the Collector. Fifthly, the learned Collector has considered the letter dated 15-6-2004, written by the Superintendent of Police, Karauli, wherein cases which were pending, or decided against the petitioner were enumerated. However, neither a copy of the said letter was given to the petitioner, nor the petitioner was granted the liberty to rebut the contents of the said letter. Therefore, his rights under the principles of natural justice have been violated. Lastly, the Divisional Commissioner has mechanically dismissed the petitioner's appeal without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the impugned order dated 2-52005 is also unsustainable.