Singh Versus State of Punjab and others-1991(2) SLJ 1039) or an ex parte report of the Superintendent of Police (Labh Singh Chattar Singh Versus the Divisional Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and another-AIR 1972 Punjab & Haryana 122), could not be a ground for revocation of licence. It has been held in the decision in Kakku Venkataramaiah Versus State of Andhra Pradesh-AIR 1960 Andh Pra 420 , that once a person is granted a licence and acquires a gun, he has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution (as it then existed) to hold the property subject only to the restriction imposed by the Arms Act and Rules and that right cannot be interfered with arbitrarily or capriciously. In this case, the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no report from the Superintendent of Police or any police official to say that there is a danger to the security of public peace or for public safety. The mere re-statement of a conviction for an alleged incident of the year 1983 cannot be a ground for revocation of a licence. The learned counsel argues that even when the licence was issued on 17.07.1989 and subsequently renewed in 1990 and 1994, a criminal case was still pending, but the licence has been cancelled for the only reason that the criminal case had resulted in conviction subsequently. The learned counsel states that a revision against the judgment is still pending before this Court.
