RAVINDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-330
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 11,2003

RAVINDRA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and another Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KAILASH NATH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
BALRAM SINGH V. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SADRI RAM V. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,AZAMGARH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
RANA PRATAP SINGH V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
CHHANGA PRASAD SAHU VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.)BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Licensing Authority under the provision of section 17(3) of the Arms Act, thereby suspending the arms licence of the petitioner pending enquiry asking him to show cause as to why the fire -arm licence of the petitioner should not be cancelled/revoked for the reasons stated in the order impugned in the present writ petition. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
(2.)LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the Licensing Authority does not have any power to suspend the petitioner's firearm licence, pending enquiry for indefinite period. Learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the provision of section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 for the purposes of present controversy, which is reproduced below:
17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.

(1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence -holder by notice in writing to deliver up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice.

(2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed.

(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence.

(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or

(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or

(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or

(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub -section (1) requiring him to deliver up the licence.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance of some decisions/judgments in support of his contention and contended that the aforesaid provision has been considered firstly by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case in Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of Uttar Pradesh : 1984 (10) ALR.Page 223and thereafter another Full Bench in the case in Kailash Nath and others v. State of U.P. and others : 1985 (22) ACC Page 353 and in the case in Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. : 1995 (Suppl). ACC Page 235. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the effect of the aforesaid Full Bench decisions have been considered by learned single Judge of this Court in the case in Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh and others : 1998 (37) ACC Page 830, wherein the learned Single Judge after realising the provision has held that the question whether the licensing authority is clothed with the powers to suspend the licence in the midst of proceedings for suspension or revocation under section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, was posed for consideration before another Full Bench of this Court in the case of Balram Singh v. State of U.P. and others : 1989 (26) ACC Page 31. The Court noticed therein the decisions referred to above and held:

The ratio in C.P. Sahu's case that there is no power to suspend pending enquiry stands completely demolished by Kailash Nath's case.

(3.)THE learned Single Judge has further observed that whenever a proceeding under sub -section (3) is initiated for suspending or revoking 'a licence' and the 'licensing authority' deems it necessary for security of public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke 'the licence', the said authority can in exercise of that power suspend the licence during pendency of these proceedings without any hindrance from other provisions in the Act, as laid down in Balram Singh's case.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.