Partly allowed

Suman Kumar v. the Commissioner Rohtak Division Rohtak and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Mar 2014CWP/7671/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, this Court set aside orders revoking the petitioner's arms license on grounds of family dispute and public peace. The Court held that revocation lacked objective material and remitted the matter to the District Collector for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 03.06.1994 and 10.03.1995 quashed; matter remitted to District Collector for fresh consideration.

Suman Kumar Vs the Commissioner Rohtak Division… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No. 7671 of 1995 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No. 7671 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.03.2014

Suman Kumar

... Petitioner

versus

The Commissioner, Rohtak and others ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶9

Present: Mr. Sailender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana ********

¶11

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶12

The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing order dated 03.06.1994 of

¶13

respondent No. 2 by which the arms license of the petitioner was revoked (P-1) and order dated 10.03.1995 (P-3).

¶14

In the year 1991, a family dispute arose between petitioner and his brothers for the distribution of hereditary property and civil litigation started between family members. The brothers of petitioner moved an application for D.C. Sonepat for cancellation of arms license of petitioner. Acted upon the application., the D.C revoked the license of the petitioner u/s 17(3) (b) of Arms Act 1959, vide order dated 03.06.1994 (P-1). The petitioner filed an appeal against this order,

¶15

Arora Gaurav 2014.04.02 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP No. 7671 of 1995 (O&M) -2-

¶17

which was also dismissed, vide order dated 10.03.1995 (P-3).

¶18

The petitioner is seeking quashing of both the orders on

¶19

the ground that he had deposited his gun with the DSP, Ganaur Office on 27.08.1993 and receipt to this effect was given to the petitioner on 08.09.1993. This is prior to the complaint made by the brothers of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner brother Dalip Singh and Jaipal Singh are also having arms license issued under Arms Act, 1959. They collectively made a complaint that their life is in danger therefore, the license of the petitioner be cancelled and similar complaint was made to concerned police station.

¶20

On notice, a written statement has been filed by the respondents admitting that one of the brother of the petitioner i.e Dalip Singh is having an arms license and due to property dispute there was tension between the families and keeping in view the apprehension of breach of public peace, the license of the petitioner was revoked.

¶21

Section 17(3) (b) of the Arms Act reads as under:-

¶22

“17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.-

¶23

(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence,--

¶24

(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;”

¶25

Arora Gaurav 2014.04.02 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP No. 7671 of 1995 (O&M) -3-

¶27

Reference at this stage can be made to a judgment in a

¶28

case of Kakku Venkataramaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh-AIR 1960 Andhra Pradesh 420 whereby it has been observed 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.

¶29

In the present case, the ground for revoking the arms licence of the petitioner was that a complaint had been made by brothers of the petitioner and one of the brother Dalip Singh himself was having a arms license.

¶30

In view of the above, the impugned orders order dated 03.06.1994 (P-1) and 10.03.1995 (P-3) are set aside and the matter is remitted back to D.C for fresh consideration for satisfaction on the basis of objective material for revocation or cancellation of license in the manner contemplated under Section 17(3) (b) of the Arms Act.

¶31

The authority may give a notice of hearing to both the

¶32

parties before taking a decision in the said matter.

¶33

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

13.03.2014 G Arora

¶35

( RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶36

Arora Gaurav 2014.04.02 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Suman Kumar v. the Commissioner Rohtak Division Rohtak and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Kumar v. the Commissioner Rohtak Division Rohtak and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bahia Resorts Vs P.S.E.B., Patiala and Ors.

Mishra Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

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

(O&M)Neelam Gupta Vs Ramesh Kaushal

Ajay Kumar Vs Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas through Its Secy. and Ors.

(O&M) Sher Singh and Anr. Vs State of Pb.and Ors.