9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Suspension of arms licence pending inquiry. 2. Indefinite suspension of arms licence. Summary: 1. Suspension of Arms Licence Pending Inquiry: The petitioner's arms licence was suspended, and he was directed to deposit the weapon at the police station. The suspension was based on the petitioner being a resident of Chitrakoot but obtaining the licence from Allahabad, and having three criminal cases filed against him. The authorities believed that the petitioner instilled fear and terror in the area, and there was a likelihood of misuse of the weapon, jeopardizing public peace and safety. The petitioner challenged this suspension in the Writ Court. The petitioner's counsel argued that the licence could not be suspended pending inquiry into its revocation and that the suspension could not remain indefinite. Section 17(3) of the Arms Act governs the suspension and revocation of arms licences. The Full Bench in *Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of U.P.* held that no opportunity of hearing was required before suspension or revocation, as the statute provides protection by obliging the licensing authority to give reasons in writing and allowing the licensee to appeal. The Full Bench also concluded that the licensing authority had no power to suspend the licence pending inquiry unless there was material indicating immediate danger to public peace and safety. 2. Indefinite Suspension of Arms Licence: The petitioner's counsel contended that the suspension was for an indefinite period. However, the Court found that the show cause notice directed the petitioner to appear by a specific date, and if the petitioner had replied, the authorities would have been obliged to pass an order. Thus, the suspension was not for an indefinite period. The Court reviewed the impugned order and found that the authority had recorded its subjective satisfaction that the petitioner's possession of the weapon would endanger public peace and safety. Therefore, the Court did not interfere with the suspension order. However, the Court directed the authority to conclude the proceedings and decide the matter within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order, in line with the decisions in *Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate/Licensing Authority, Azamgarh* and *Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P.* Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, but the authority was directed to conclude the proceedings within three months.
|
