A. Ram Murti Madhukar v. District Magistrate, Sitapur
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 53756 of 2016 Abdulla State Of U.P. And 2 Others Versus .....Petitioner(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kshitij Shailendra (Elevated), Suraj Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Kumar Singh Court No. - 6 Judgement Reserved on 26.08.2025 Judgement Delivered on 26.09.2025 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
Legal Reasoning
6. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the law laid down by this Court in following judgements :- A. Ram Murti Madhukar vs. District Magistrate, Sitapur [1998 (16) LCD-905], B. Ram Karpal Singh vs. Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Ors. [2006 (24) LCD 114] C Jay Bhagwan Kanodia Vs. The Commissioner and another Writ C No.3439 of 2011 decided on 26.07.2012 D. Ram Prasad vs. Commissioner and Ors. (Writ-C No. 56378 of 2006) decided on 07.02.2020 E. Suresh Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (2) ADJ 158 and 2022 SCC Online All 2023. F. Amar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ C No. 48730 of 2015) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine All 2049. 7. In the aforesaid judgements, it has been held by this Court that mere pendency of criminal case or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for passing the order of suspension or revocation of licence under Section 17 of the Act. 8. Per contra learned Standing Counsel submits that since the petitioner is having certain criminal cases registered against him, public peace and safety are in danger, therefore, the order has rightly been passed cancelling the fire arms license of the petitioner. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 WRIC No. 53756 of 2016 10. This Court in the case of Jay Bhagwan Kanodia Vs. The Commissioner and another decided on 26.07.2012 and Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 28.03.2019 has held that fire arms licence can only be cancelled if it falls within sub Section (3) of Section 17 of the Act. 11. The provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act provides various conditions for variation/cancellation or suspension of the arms licence, which is reproduced as under:- "17.Variation, suspension and revocation of licences- 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." 12. In the case of the Suresh Singh Yadav (supra) and Amar Singh (supra), this Court has specifically held that mere pendency of criminal cases or apprehension of misuse of arms are not sufficient grounds for suspension or cancellation of firearm licence under Section 17 of the Act. The same view was also taken by the different Benches of this Court in the case of Ram Murti Madhukar (supra), Ram Karpal Singh (supra) and Ram Prasad (supra). 13. A licence may be cancelled, inter alia on the ground that it is necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety' to do so. The District Magistrate has not recorded a finding that it was necessary 4 WRIC No. 53756 of 2016 for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the licence. The mere existence of enmity between a licensee and another person would not establish the "necessary" connection with security of the public peace or public safety. There should be something more than mere enmity. There should be some evidence of the provocative utterances of the licensee or of his suspicious movements or of his criminal designs and conspiracy in reinforcement of the evidence of enmity. It is not possible to give an exhaustive list of facts and circumstances from which an inference of threat to public security or public peace may be deduced. The District Magistrate will have to take a decision on the facts of each case. But in the instant case there 'is nothing in his order to indicate that it was necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to cancel the licence of the petitioner. Mere enmity is not sufficient. 14. The District Magistrate, Varanasi did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 17 at all. His order gives an impression of having been made in a mechanical manner. The cancellation of a licence destroys a valuable privilege of a free citizen of a free country. The District Magistrate ought to fairly consider the facts and circumstances of each case and should also bear in mind the provisions of Section 17 of the Arms that the law does not give them a free hand. 15. Insofar as the present case, is concerned, from perusal of the record, it transpires that due to pendency of one criminal case against the petitioner, firearm license has been cancelled and now the situation has been changed as the petitioner has been acquitted by the Trial Court in all the aforesaid criminal cases, in view of the above, Court is of the opinion that the ground of cancellation does not survive. 16. In this view of the matter, the order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the respondent No.3/Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and the order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Varanasi are liable to be set aside and the same are set aside.
Arguments
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is having three firearm license Nos. 204, 234 and 349 of Gun No. 1380 and Pistol No. 2485 and N.P.B. Rifle No. 074208178 respectively and the aforesaid firearm licenses have been cancelled by the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Varanasi vide order 15.04.2015 on the ground that one criminal case being Case Crime No. 186 of 2010 under Sections 147, 452, 307, 392, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal being Appeal No. C20151400001290 before the respondent No.3/Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi which was also dismissed by him on the same ground vide order dated 17.08.2016. Aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. Since pure question of law involved in the present petition, in this view of the matter and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is being heard and decided without waiting for counter affidavit. 4. In paragraph 3 of the second supplementary affidavit, it is stated that 2 WRIC No. 53756 of 2016 the petitioner has been acquitted in the Case Crime No. 186 of 2010 by the Trial Court vide order dated 17.12.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Varanasi, copy of the aforesaid judgement and order is appended as Annexure No. 1 to the second supplementary affidavit. 5. It is further argued that there is no material on record to show that armed license granted to the petitioner has been misused or there is any danger to public safety except the allegations that criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. It is further argued that license can only be cancelled only to reasons assigned to Section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Decision
17. The petition is allowed. 18. The District Magistrate, Varanasi/respondent no.2 is directed to pass fresh order in the matter taking into consideration observations made herein above within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. September 26, 2025 Arti (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad