B.L. Yadav, J.@mdashThis petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 14th July, 1983 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner u/s 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the order dated 4th June, 1983 (Annexure 4) passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar cancelling the licence of the gun held by the Petitioner.
2. The facts of the case are few and simple. The Petitioner was holding a licence for the gun. He was given a notice as to why not the same may be cancelled The ground for cancellation of the licence was that the Petitioner was keeping company with the antisocial elements. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the same (Annexure 3) stating that he has never misused the gun and he has kept it for his personal safety. He has no connection with any anti-social element nor any incident has been reported in which the gun was used by the Petitioner. After considering the explanation the impugned order dated 4th June, 1983 was passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar cancelling the licence of the Petitioner and the same was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut by the impugned order dated 14th July 1983.
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that no incident having adverse effect on public peace or public safety has been mentioned or relied on as required by Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act. Further no specific incident of keeping company of the bad elements of society has been cited. Even after the list being revised, no body appeared on behalt of the State.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner I am of the view that the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be said to be without substance. Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act enacts that licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence or revoke the same if it becomes necessary for the security of public peace or the public safety. When once a person has been granted a licence and he acquires a gun, it becomes one of his properties He has a fundamental right to acquire, bold and dispose of property. The Petitioner accordingly, should not be deprived of his fundamental right unless reasonable restriction has been imposed by any law made by the State. It is to be remembered that a law which imposes reasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the citizens of this country, has to be strictly scrutinized before it is applied to curtail the fundamental rights. In the present case no incident of breach of security of the public peace or public safety at the behest of the Petitioner has been pointed out. Even no report was lodged against the Petitioner indicating that he used his gun in the incident which led to the breach of public peace or public safety. Even though some reports might have been lodged but that could not be said to be a sufficient reason to cancel the licence. (See also Sheo Prasad Misra v. District Magistrate, Basti 1978 AWC 122 ''DB'' and
5. In the instant case no incident of breach of public peace or public safety has been cited either in the notice or in the impugned orders. Just by making a vague allegation that the Petitioner was keeping company with the bad elements of the society would not be covered by the clause "security of public peace" or ''for public safety'' u/s 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act. There must be some positive incident in which the Petitioner participated and used his gun which led to the breach of the public peace or public safety. In the absence of the use of the gun by the Petitioner against the security of public peace or public safety the licence of the gun of the Petitioner was not liable either to be suspended or revoked. The licensing authority aswell as the Commissioner committed errors on the face of the record in cancelling the licence of the gun held by the Petitioner in utter disregard of the provisions of Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act. In view of these facts the impugned orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed.
6. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 14th July, 1983 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and the order dated 4th June 1983 passed by the District Magistrate. Muzaffarnagar are hereby quashed. As an inescapable corollary the Respondents are directed to hand over the gun to the Petitioner forthwith within a fortnight. But as no body appeared for Respondents I make no order as to costs.
Petition allowed.
