Remanded

Atam Swaroop v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 May 2012CWP/23337/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order denying renewal of a firearm licence as the reasons were unjustified based on stereotype reports and old acquittals. It remanded the matter for a fresh order with a substantiated verification report.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to competent authority for fresh order with appropriate substantiated report.

Atam Swaroop Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.W.P.No.23337 of 2011(O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P.No.23337 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 09.05.2012

Atam Swaroop

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr.Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl AG Haryana

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

The petitioner applied for renewal of the armed licence which has been declined by virtue of the impugned orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 on the ground that he was involved in criminal activity and faced criminal prosecution. The report was submitted by the officer-incharge which indicated that the petitioner is a quarrelsome person and this resulted in the denial of renewal of the armed licence and he was directed to deposit the same with the nearest Police Station or an arms dealer in accordance with Section 21 of the Arms Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the criminal cases referred to in the impugned orders have resulted in his acquittal and they pertain to the years 2002 and 2007 and at the time when the application for renewal was to be considered much time had elapsed since the registration of the FIRs and that further he had been acquitted in all these cases.

¶15

C.W.P.No.23337 of 2011(O&M) 2

¶16

Besides, learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that only incident of using fire arm by him pertains to the year 2002. Consequently, the verification report indicating that he is quarrelsome person and is likely to abuse fire arm is not based on satisfactory material.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent has justified denial of renewal of the armed licence by referring to the reply filed by them and the material which suggest that the petitioner was involved in some criminal cases on prior occasions.

¶18

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the denial of renewal of the armed licence seems to be unjustified in the given set of circumstances, considering the fact that there is only one occasion which indicated that the petitioner had used fire arm and that too in the year 2002. Subsequent involvement in the years 2002 and 2007 is also of a period which is much prior to the application for renewal of the licence made by the petitioner.

¶19

There is indeed no doubt that it is the subjective satisfaction of the authorities concerned who have to take into consideration the various aspects of the personal tendencies of a person to abuse the fire arm but the same obviously has to be based on cogent material. If the facts are to be seen then it is clear that the petitioner has not been involved in any criminal activity atleast after 2007 and in any eventuality the fire arm was not used after 2002. Besides, the petitioner stands acquitted in all these cases. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the competent authority to pass fresh order keeping in view what has been stated above. Needless to say, it is expected of the authorities to have an appropriate verification report. This observation has

¶20

C.W.P.No.23337 of 2011(O&M) 3

¶21

been prompted by this Court keeping in view the stereo type report which has been noticed in all these cases of rejection. Before any report regarding a person being of a quarrelsome nature is recorded it should be incumbent upon the officer who gives this report to give instances or substantiate the material which can justify such a conclusion by the officer concerned. Giving stereo type report does not enhance the case of the administration in any manner and rather results in avoidable situation such as the present one.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is

¶23

disposed of.

¶24

May 9, 2012 rekha

¶25

(Mahesh Grover) Judge

Atam Swaroop v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atam Swaroop v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagtar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Khadi Sewa Sangh Vs Haryana State Khadi & Village Industries Bo. & Ors.

P S E B Vs Surindra Steel Rolling and General Mills and Ors.

Manmohan Singh and Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner, Pb and Ors.

Mahinder Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Inder Singh Vs Chairman Bar Council of Bar Association, Chd & Anr.