Judgment · High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 3, 17(b), 25
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 307
Judgment
Through :- Mr. G. S Thakur, Advocate V/s UT of J&K and Ors. ….Respondent(s) Through :- Mrs. Monika Koli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved of an order dated 06.09.2022 ( for short ‘impugned order’) passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu (for short ‘learned Magistrate’) whereby while exercising power conferred under Section 17(b) of Arms Act 1959, the learned Magistrate has revoked the license bearing No. DMJ/AL/Civil/2011/530
17.12.2011(UIN No. 152930025633062015) with immediate effect.
The aforesaid license of the petitioner has been revoked mainly on the ground that the petitioner is involved in four cases i.e.,(i) FIR No. 163/2011 for commission of offences under Section 3/25 Arms Act registered with Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu, (ii) FIR No. 06/2012 for commission of offences under Section 309 RPC, 30 Arms Act registered with Police Station Channi Himmat, Jammu, (iii) FIR No. 190/2019 for commission of offences under Sections 307 IPC, 30 Arms Act registered with Police Station Channi Himmat, Jammu and (iv) FIR 2 No. 103/2011 for commission of offences under Section 341/323 RPC registered with Police Station Gangyal, Jammu. The order further reveals that statements of prominent persons of the area were recorded and the local public also corroborated the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order nowhere mentions that the before passing of the order of revocation of the license, the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard, and without explaining his position with respect to the allegations made against the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order in violation of the principal of natural justice.
Per contra, Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG in her objections/status report has resisted and controverted the contentions raised and grounds urged in the instant petition, precisely on the ground that the learned Magistrate has authority to revoke the license without giving any notice or without giving an opportunity of being heard. She further submits though the order has been passed on the satisfaction recorded and the petitioner was not required to be given any opportunity of being heard.
It is thus, her argument that principal of natural justice are not required to be observed, where a right of the person is taken away from. It is to be seen as to whether the respondents ought to have revoked the license without hearing the petitioner or without serving any show cause notice upon him.
A person whose right is taken away has also right to be heard. Order against his interest or rights cannot be passed without the person affected is given show cause before such action is taken. The impugned order dated 06.09.2022, admittedly has been passed without serving any notice 3 upon the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order has been passed without observing the principal of natural Justice, as such, the order impugned dated 06.09.2022 is set-aside.
However, the license in question shall remain suspended and petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard before any action is proposed to be taken against him including the revocation of his license. Show cause notice shall be issue to the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu and after hearing the petitioner, respondents shall pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date the petitioner approaches the respondents.
Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Jammu: 25.10.2024 Javid Iqbal
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.