Judgment:
Mehtab S. Gill, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 13th June, 1997 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No. 2 and 8th October, 1998 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 1.
2. According to the petitioner, he is a political man and holds arms licence No. 1269/AL/Narwana but he never misused his weapon. In spite of this, respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jind issued a show cause notice dated 3rd April, 1997 (Annexure P-1) on the basis of report made by the Superintendent of Police and the Sub Divisional Magistrate after an inquiry made by them. He submitted his reply dated 21st April, 1997 (Annexure P-2) to the show cause notice specifically stating therein that he was never convicted or sentenced. However, while considering his reply in a correct perspective, respondent No. 2 passed order dated 13th June, 1997 (Annexure P-4) cancelling his arms licence and appeal filed by him was dismissed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 8th October, 1998 (Annexure P-6).
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents, the following particulars of the cases registered against the petitioner have been given:-
(i) F.I.R. No. 173 dated 26th May, 1979 under Section 61/1/14 of the Excise Act, Police Station, Tohana in which the petitioner was convicted vide order dated 12th February, 1980;
(ii) F.I.R. No. 89 dated 3rd April, 1980, under Sections 452/324/506/34 I.P.C. Police Station, Kalayat wherein the accused was convicted and sentenced vide order dated 14th November, 1982;
(iii) F.I.R. No. 166 dated 7th September, 1982 under Sections 448/325/506/148/149 L.P.C., Police Station City, Jind, wherein the accused was convicted and sentenced vide order dated 2nd August, 1986; and
(iv) F.I.R. No. 176 dated 27th June, 1995, under Sections 398/452 I.P.C. Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar.
4. The respondents have further averred that the order cancelling arms licence of the petitioner was passed after giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing.
5. We have heard arguments of Shri R.S. Kundu, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jaswant Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and perused the record.
6. Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, which empowers the competent authority to suspend or revoke the licence reads as under:-
'17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.- (1) The Licensing Authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice.
(2) The Licensing Authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed.
(3) The Licensing Authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such periods as it thinks fit or revoke a licence -
(a) if the Licensing Authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or
(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; or
(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or
(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or
(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.
(4) The Licensing Authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof.
(5) Where the Licensing Authority makes an order' varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefore 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.
(6) The authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate may by order in writing suspend or revoke a licence on any ground on which it may be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority; and the foregoing provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority.
(7) A Court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence:
Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void.(8) An order of suspension or revocation under sub-section (7) may also be made by an appellate Court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision.
(9) The Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any licenses granted under this Act throughout India or any part thereof.
(10) On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section, the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation.'
7. A perusal of the record shows that the allegations contained in F.I.R. No. 176 of 1995 registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Hisar under Sections 398/452, Indian Penal Code, suggest that the petitioner had misused his licence inasmuch as he handed over his gun to Shri Sumer Singh and the same was recovered from him. The other cases registered against the petitioner show that he is a person habitual of indulging in criminal activities and there is every possibility that he can endanger the public peace and public safety. He has also been challaned, convicted and sentenced in various cases. In the background of these facts, it is not possible to accept the argument of Shri Kundu that the impugned orders suffer from any error of law warranting interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.