Het Ram v. State of Rajasthan) Date of order & Ors.

: 15.02.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Draun Kaushik, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the letter dated 06.03.2006 (Annexure-2) sent by S.P., Hanumangarh, order dated

19.06.2006 (Annexure-3) passed by District Collector, Hanumangarh and the order dated 10.07.2007 (Annexure-4) passed by Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. The Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh sent a letter dated 06.03.2006 (Annexure-2) to District Collector, Hanumangarh, wherein the names of 2 as many as 13 persons, including the name of petitioner, were mentioned and it was informed by the S.P., Hanumangarh that in the interest of public peace, the arms licences of 13 persons including the petitioner may not be restored. This report was sought by the Collector, Hanumangarh from S.P., Hanumangarh. On the basis of the said report, the Collector has cancelled the arm licence issued in favour of petitioner vide order dated 19.6.2006. The petitioner's licence was cancelled under Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959. Vide order dated 19.6.2006, the District Collector, Hanumangarh has observed that it is necessary for the purpose of security of the public peace and safety to cancel the said licence issued in favour of the petitioner. It is also observed that as per the report given by the S.P., Hanumangarh, it is not proper to allow the petitioner to have such licence and accordingly, cancelled the same while exercising powers under Section 17 (3) (b) of the 3 Arms Act, 1959.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Hanumangarh vide order dated 23.6.2006 acquitted the petitioner from the charges levelled against him with regard to filing of FIR against him before Police Station, Hanumangarh. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that against the cancellation order dated

19.6.2006 passed by District Collector, Hanumangarh, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, that too was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.07.2007. Upon perusal of the order of cancellation as well as the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, it is clear that the action was taken against the petitioner by the District 4 Collector under Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act,

1959. Section 17 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959 reads as under:- “17(3)(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; Upon perusal of the said section, it is clear that there is power left with the District Collector to revoke any licence in the interest of public safety. As such, the contention of the petitioner that he has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him in the FIR filed against him, is totally irrelevant because the cancellation has been made by the District Collector while exercising power under Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act of 1959. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I 5 see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned Annexures-3 and 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. A.K. Chouhan/- (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.