Judgment:
ORDER
Dipak Misra, J.
1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of order dated 1-7-1999 Annexure P-4 passed by the Commissioner,Sagar Division, Sagar, affirming the order dated 14-1-1999, Annexure P-3 passed by the Collector, Chhatarpur.
2. The facts as have been unfurled are that in the year 1964 the petitioner 1, was granted a licence of rifle bearing number MP.CHP1/435/L/64 and in the year 1987 the petitioner 2 was granted a licence number MP.CHP1/9/L/87 for the 12 bore single barrel gun. The petitioner 3 was granted a licence number MP.CHP1/139/L/69 for a 12 bore double barrel gun. According to the petitioners they have never been implicated in any criminal case and have not abused the facility conferred on them. The petitioner 3 has been conferred an award by the M.P. State Police for his bravery. As averred, in the year 1987 as there was political intervention the petitioners were booked in a proceeding under Sections 107 and 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code'). Eventually the said proceeding was dropped. At that juncture, Collector of Chhatarpur, the respondent 1, herein was informed by the Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur that the petitioners were threatening and harassing one Ramprasad Ahirwar in relation to dispute pertaining to agricultural land and on that basis he recommended for cancellation of the gun licences which were granted in favour of the petitioners. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendation show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners and they filed their reply refuting the allegations. It was pleaded before the respondent 1 that there was no complaint against the petitioners and in absence of any material there was no justification to cancel the licences. The Collector, Chhatarpur by his order dated 14-1-1999 directed cancellation of the licences. Being dissatisfied with the said order the petitioners carried an appeal before the Commissioner, respondent 2 herein, who rejected the contentions canvassed by the petitioners and affirmed the order of cancellation. It is setforth in the writ petition that some years back son of the petitioner 1 was kidnapped by dacoits and a ransom of Rs. 25,000/- was demanded. Because of this situation the petitioners had sought for gun licences which were granted. It is pleaded in the petition that in so many years the only proceeding that ever initiated against the petitioners is one under Section 107 read with Section 117 of the Code but the same having been dropped on the next day because of a compromise entered into between the parties, there was no justification to exercise the power to cancel the licences.
3. A return has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that one Ramprasad Ahirwar a member of Scheduled Castes community, submitted a complaint to the District Collector, Chhatarpur on 23-4-1997 alleging that the petitioners are attempting to forcibly dispossess him from his agricultural land. It was alleged that the petitioners forcibly entered into the field of the said complainant and later on put his house on fire. It has been stated that as a result of the said complaint the proceeding under Section 107 read with Section 117 of the Code was initiated against the petitioners and on that basis the Superintendent of Police recommended for cancellation of the gun licences. It is further pleaded that the petitioners were given due oppor-tunity to participate in the proceeding and on the basis of the material on record the licences under Section 17 of the Arms Act have been cancelled.
4. I have heard Mr. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.O. Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in absence of any material on record or any affidavit from any quarter to the effect that the petitioners are not persons of good character or have been involved in criminal activities, the order of cancellation of the gun licences is unjustified. It is also canvassed by him that when the proceeding under Section 107 read with Section 117 of the Code was dropped due to compromise entered into between the parties the ground, if any, became non-existent and, therefore, the act of the authorities is vulnerable.
Resisting the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State has submitted that there was a complaint against the petitioners and on proper enquiry the orders have been passed and hence, they are not to be lanceted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner contending, inter alia, that the proceeding under Section 107 read with Section 117 of the Code was dropped two years prior to the initiation of the proceeding for cancellation and there was no apprehension of breach of peace.
6. To appreciate the rival contentions raised at the Bar, I have carefully perused the orders passed by the Collector, vide Annexure P-3 and on scrutiny of the same it transpires that the cancelling authority has referred to the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police which is based on the initiation of the proceeding under Section 107 read with Section 117 of the Code. Solely on the aforesaid basis a conclusion has arrived at that there was apprehension that the petitioners would abuse the weapons for which licences have been granted in their favour. The appellate authority has affirmed the said order by adopting the reasons given by the licensing authority.
7. The question that falls for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the authorities are justified in cancelling the licences. In this context, I may profitably refer to sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Arms Act. It reads as under :--
'17. (5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) of an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.'
On a fair reading of the aforesaid provision it becomes quite vivid the Act requires an order of the licensing authority to be passed recording the reasons for suspension or revocation of a licence. In this context, I may profitably refera decision rendered in the case of The State of Punjab and another v. Mangat Rai, AIR 1973 Punjab and Haryana 24, wherein the Division Bench of the said High Court held as under:-
'When the finding of the District Magistrate that the licensee did not bear a good character or was reported to be a leader of desperados was based on no evidence whatsoever, it cannot be sustained.'
In the case of Udaiveer Singh v. D.M. Farrukhabad and another, AIR 1981 Allahabad 244, it was held that when a proceeding under Sections 107/117 of the Code is dropped due to compromise and there is no apprehension of breach of peace the subsequent order of the District Magistrate cancelling the licence on the same ground is illegal as the same is based on non-existent ground.
8. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law it is apparent that the orders passed by the authorities becomes sensitively susceptible inasmuch as both the authorities have proceeded on the basis that a proceeding under Section 107 read with Section 117 of the Code was initiated against the petitioners. They have not kept themselves alive to the fact that the proceeding was dropped on the next day on the basis of compromise and as an actual fact, was no apprehension of breach of peace. As the ground had become non-existent, I am of the considered view that the ratio laid down in the case of Udaiveer Singh (supra) is squarely applicable.
9. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the orders passed vide Annexures P-3 and P-4 are quashed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
10. Writ-Petition allowed.