Allahabad High Court
Rajit Ram Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 6 February, 2024
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11155 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9336 of 2023 Petitioner :- Rajit Ram Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Verma,Atiya Abid,Mohd. Aslam Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shailendra Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Shri Saharsh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. In pursuance to the order dated 30.01.2024 learned Chief Standing Counsel informs that records are available.
3. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main relief:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction i the nature of Certiorari quashing 28.8.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya in appeal No. 00180/2021 (Computerized No. C202104000000180) "Ranjit Ram Verma versus State of U.P." and order dated 8.1.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Case No. 00120/2020 (Computerized No. D202004040000120) "State Versus Ranjit Ram"., as contained in Annexure No. 1&2 respectively to this writ petition."
4. The case set forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been issued a firearms license in the year 1999. On 18.02.2020, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why the arms license should not be cancelled. The petitioner claims to have submitted a detailed reply which did not find favour with the authorities concerned who vide order impugned dated 08.01.2021, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, cancelled the fire arms license. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal which has also been rejected vide the order dated 28.08.2023 and hence the petition.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the order impugned dated 08.01.2021 per which his arms license has been cancelled indicates that no grounds emerge from the said order pertaining to petitioner having ever misused his arms license and the petitioner having indulged in any criminal incident and consequently the order impugned has been passed with patent non application of mind and on this ground alone the order impugned merits to be quashed. This aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and as such, the appellate order also merits to be set aside.
6. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Narsingh Pandey vs State of U.P. and others, MANU/UP/2749/2023 to contend that this Court has held that the fire arms license of the petitioner could not have been cancelled in public interest as no incident of breach of security of public peace or public safety at the behest of the petitioner has been pointed out nor any incident per which the petitioner might have misused the fire arm in any incident has been indicated and as such it is prayed that the orders impugned run foul to the proposition of law as laid down by this Court in the case of Narsingh Pandey (supra), and therefore the orders impugned merit to be set aside.
7. Per contra, Shri Shailendra Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit argues that a perusal of the order impugned dated 08.01.2021 would indicate that on the basis of the satisfaction recorded by the competent authority, in this case the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, whereby it has been indicated that the petitioner is conniving with hardened criminals namely Khan Mubarak and his gang and is also providing assistance to them including monetary assistance and is also collecting money through hawala etc as such continuance of the arms license with the petitioner would be detrimental for security of public peace and public safety and thus based on the police report and the enclosures contained therein, the competent authority has cancelled the firearms license of the petitioner.
8. The said order has also been affirmed with the dismissal of the appeal.
9. Placing reliance on judgement of this Court in the case of Indrajeet Singh vs State of U.P. and others, MANU/UP/2251/2021 the argument is that this Court has considered the provisions of Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 to hold that it is the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority which comes into picture while passing any order under the aforesaid provisions and it is not necessary that the actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may occur and that it is the licensing authority who can best judge and assess the situation on the basis of the materials before him and such assessment cannot be substituted by this Court.
10. Reliance has also been placed on a judgement of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Gautam vs State of U.P. and others dated 30.01.2024 passed in Writ C No. 1614 of 2023 to contend that this Court has considered the provisions of Section 17(3)(b) of the Act 1959 to hold that it is the satisfaction of the authorities concerned on the basis of materials before it who is in a position to take the decision in the matter and the writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not required to substitute the finding as recorded by the competent officer and the appellate authority.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. From perusal of record it emerges that the petitioner was having an arms license issued to him in the year 1999 which has been cancelled after due notice and after considering the reply of the petitioner. The arms license had been cancelled vide the order dated 08.01.2021. Various reasons have been recorded in the said order including the petitioner extending protection to the hardened criminal Khan Mubarak and his gang and being engaged in contract work for the said gang and being engaged in collection of funds also. The competent authority has considered the report submitted by the police alongwith the annexures contained therein wherein he has arrived at a finding of there being a threat to public peace and public safety, to revoke the license of the petitioner.
13. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the order impugned dated 08.01.2021 is quoted below:
"fo}ku T;s"B vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh vEcsMdj uxj o foi{kh ds fo}ku vf/koDRkk ds rdksZa rFkk i=koyh esa miyC/k foi{kh }kjk izLrqr Li"Vhdj.k ,oa iqfyl fjiksVZ ds lkFk layXu vfHkys[kksa dk voyksdu o ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA iqfyl ds vxzlkj.k fjiksVZ esa mfYYkf[kr gS fd **'kL= ykblsUl /kkjd jkftrjke oekZ iq= eX/kw oekZ fuoklh tksr voLFkh dks0 Vk.Mk tuin vEcsMdj uxj ds }kjk tuin ds nqnkZUr vijk/kh [kku eqckjd o mlds xSax dks laj{k.k iznku fd;k tkrk gSA 'kL= /kkjd rhu HkkbZ gS] ftuds uke ls Hkh 'kL= ykblsaLk cuk gSA 'kL= /kkjd }kjk la;qDr :i ls bZV HkV~Bk dk O;olk; ,oa Bsdsnkjh fd;k tkrk gSA 'kL= /kkjd }kjk [kku eqckjd o mlds xSax ds lnL;kasa dks laj{k.k iznku fd;k tkrk gSA [kku eqckjd ,oa mlds xSax ds lnL;ksa }kjk vius vkijkf/kd d`R;ksa ls vftZRk /ku dk fuos'k Hkh 'kL= /kkjd }kjk vius O;olk; esa fd;k tkrk gSA dLck galoj o Vk.Mk esa oekZ fczd QhYM ds uke ls 02 HkV~Bs Hkh gS tks 'kL= /kkjd }kjk lapkfyr fd;k tkrk gSA 'kL= /kkjd ds ek/;e ls vijk/kh [kku eqckjd }kjk Bsdsnkjh dh tkrh gSA blds vfrfjDr [kku eqckjd dk lxk HkkbZ tQj eqckjd tks eqEcbZ esa jgrk Fkk vkSj gR;k ds ,d vfHk;ksx esa mls vkthou dkjkokl dh ltk Hkh gks pqdh gS] mlds }kjk gokyk o vU; ek/;eksa ls vftZRk /ku dk fuos'k Hkh 'kL= /kkjd mijksDr }kjk vius O;olk; esa fd;k tkrk gSA [kku eqckjd ds dkj.k gh {ks= esa jkftrjke oekZ dh Nfo Hkh ncax O;fDr;ksa dh gSA mijksDr 'kL= /kkjd dk lEcU/k vkijkf/kd izo`fRRk ds O;fDr;ksa ls gS rFkk 'kL= ,uih cksj jk;Qy ua0 ,ch&03&14273 ykblsal ua0 261@dksrokyh Vk.Mk dk buds ikl cuk jguk tufgr esa dnkfi mfpr ugh gSA yksdlqj{kk ,oa yksdO;oLFkk fgr esa ugh gS ,oa 'kL= vf/kfu;e dh /kkjkvksa esa mfYYkf[kr 'krkZsa dk mYYka?ku fd;k x;k gSA ** i=koyh ij miyC/k iqfyl fjiksZV vkSj mlds lkFk layXu vfHkys[kksa ls ;g rF; izFken`"V;k izekf.kr gksrk gS fd vuqKfIr /kkjd }kjk vEcsMdj uxj tuin ds nqnkZUr vijk/kh [kku eqckjd o mlds xSax dks laj{k.k iznku fd;k tkrk gSA foi{kh dk mDr d`R; 'kL= ykblasl dh 'krksZa ds izfrdwy gSA 'kL= ykblsalksa }kjk vijk/kh o mlds xSax dks laj{k.k iznku fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa 'kL= ykblsal dk cus jguk fdlh Hkh n'kk esa mfpr ugha gSA i=koyh ij iz'uxr 'kL= ykblsaLk dks fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq i;kZIr vk/kkj miyC/k gSA mDr ds n`f"Vxr foi{kh jkftrjke oekZ iq= eX/kw oekZ fuoklh thr voLFkh dks0 Vk.Mk tuin vEcsMdjuxj }kjk /kkfjr 'kL= ykblsal dks fujLr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA"
14. This Court had required learned Standing Counsel to produce records which have been produced. The Court has gone through the records. Perusal of the records would indicate that the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar has sent a report to the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar dated 22.01.2020 requesting for cancellation of arms license of the petitioner. The said report has also as its enclosure (a) a report, (b) a beat report and (c) beat report inquiry. Copy of the beat report would indicate that the Sub-Inspector has duly recorded in the general diary of the petitioner having relations with hardened criminal Khan Mubarak and his gang and he providing protection to them and that continuance of the arms license with the petitioner would not be in public security and public interest and at any stretch of time any untoward incident may occur.
15. The beat report of the Inspector also indicates the same thing (page 27 of the records) followed by a report of the Inspector dated 10.01.2020 which also states the same thing and recommends for cancellation of arms license.
16. Upon a specific query being put to learned Chief Standing Counsel as to under which provisions of law the beat report is submitted, it is stated that the beat report is submitted in pursuance to Paragraph 63 read with Paragraphs 257, 260 and 295of the U.P. Police Regulations. The beat duty system is followed in terms of Paragraph 194 of the U.P. Police Regulations.
17. For the sake of convenience Paragraphs 63, 194, 257, 260 and 295 are reproduced below:
"63. Division of Police station circle into beats and duties of beat constables.- Police station circles shall be divided into beats and one more constable appointed to each beat. A constable shall not be sent out unless charged with some specified duty, but when sent he should be instructed to make inquiries on his way about persons under surveillance, absconded offenders,wandering tribes and passing events, on return to the station house he should make a report to the officer-in-charge.
Ordinarily a constable should not be away from his station house or outpost for more than three days and two nights consecutively, the officer who sends him out should fix the time of his absence subject to any extension required by unforeseen events.
194. Six-beat system of Patrolling in towns- In towns, patrol should be carried out on the 'six-beat system', the essential features of which are that every man should have two nights' rest in every six, that there should always be one man on duty in the beat by day and two men at night (from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) and that no man should have more than four hours' night work at a time) The following table gives an example of the distribution of beat duty according to the system, which may be varied to suit local requirements:
Scheme of beat duty in towns HOT WEATHER Day Night Hours Hours 6-8 8-10 10-1 1-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-2 2-6 1st ... ... A B C D A B CD EF AB 2nd ... ... C D E F C D EF AB DC 3rd ... ... E F A B E F AB CD EF 4th ... ... etc. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
COLD WEATHER Day Night Hours Hours 6-8 8-11 11-2 2-5 5-8 8-10 10-2 2-6 1st ... ... AB C D E F CD EF AB 2nd ... ... CD E F A B EF AB CD 3rd ... ... EF A B C D AB CD EF 4th ... ... etc. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Notes.-
(1) The men on patrol duty at night should be constantly on the move and should pay special attention to places when burglars are likely to operate. Half the men off duty during the day must be present at the station or outpost. All the men off duty must be present at night. (2) Where the force is large enough, beats should be arranged in circles each circle being in-charge of sub-inspector or head constable. If chaukidars are used for watch and ward, this supervisory duty may be performed by a constable. The officer should go his rounds with a special night patrol to see that the men on beat duty are doing their work properly and to look out for thieves. This special patrol may with advantages wear plain clothes occasionally. Men on beat duty and on special night patrol in towns should be provided with spears bludgeons. (3) Constables on patrol duty should be made responsible for the surveillance of registered bad characters at night.
257. Movement of history sheeter should be informed by beat constable or village chaukidar to S.O. - It is the duty of the village chaukidar or beat constable (in towns) whenever a bad character on a history-sheet leaves his home, immediately to inform the officer-in-charge of the police station of his departure and his destination, if known.
260. Visit of history sheeter within circle, be verified by inquiry through beat constable- When a bad character leaves his home for an unusual or suspicious destination within the circle of which he is a resident, the report of the constable or chaukidar will be entered in the general diary and the visit will be verified as soon as possible by inquiry through a constable or from the chaukidar of the village to which the bad character is alleged to have gone.
295. Recording of matters in General Diary.-
The following matters must be recorded in general diary:
(1) Report of the morning parade with a note of the cause of absence of any officer or man.
(2) Verification of cash balance and inspection of malkhana by the officer-in-charge.
(3) Distribution of daily duties and grant of casual leave, (4) Departure and return of police officers on and from duty, transfer or leave.
(5) Reports of the performance of all duties e.g., beat duty, process serving, inspection and investigation.
(6) Transfer of charge of the police station or of the head moharrir's duties.
(7) Postings and relief of sentries when under paragraph 59 they have to be posted and relieved by a sub-inspector or head constable.
(8) Receipt and disbursement of cash.
(9) The fact that the police have taken possession of any property together with brief details of such property and of the action taken to dispose it of.
(10) Arrests made at the police station.
(11) The arrival or departure of prisoners with a statement, in the case of departing prisoners, of the reasons for imposing or not imposing handcuffs.
(12) admission of prisoners to bail at the station.
(13) Reports of offences, with number of check receipt) Form No. 341 or 347), distance and direction from the station of the village from which the offence is reported; and, in the case of cognizable offences the number of offences reported; and, in the case of cognizable offences the number of offences reported from that village up-to date during the year."
18. From perusal of the Paragraphs aforesaid it emerges that Regulation 63 of the U.P. Police Regulations indicates about police station circles to be divided into beats and one or more constable appointed to each beat. When a constable is sent out he is required to make inquiry on his way about persons under surveillance, absconded offenders and passing events on return to station house in order to make a report to the officer in charge.
19. Paragraph 194 of the U.P. Police Regulations indicate about the beat duty system. Paragraph 257 and Paragraph 260 of the U.P. Police Regulations indicate that it is the duty of the beat constable to inform the officer incharge of the police station of departure of any bad character and his destination and about unusual or suspicious destination. Paragraph 295 of the U.P. Police Regulations indicates about the matters which are to be reported in the general diary of which sub paragraph (5) indicate about the report of performance of duties, for example beat duties etc to be recorded.
20. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the U.P. Police Regulations it is apparent that the beat report has been submitted under provisions of Paragraph 63 and Paragraph 295 (5) of the U.P. Police Regulations which have been forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar to District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar i.e. the competent authority, recommending the cancellation of the arms license of the petitioner. Based on the same the satisfaction of the authority concerned about continuance of arms license and licence to be revoked has been recorded that continuance of arms license would not be in the security of public peace or for public safety.
21. This Court in the case of Indrajeet Singh (supra) has held as under:
"17. The words used in Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act, 1959 is "deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety" i.e. in order to secure public peace or for public safety, the licensing authority if deems necessary, may suspend or revoke the licence. It is not necessary that actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may take place to revoke or suspend the arms licence. The licensing authority on the basis of material available, if deems necessary for security of public peace or for public safety may revoke the arms licence. Therefore, at this stage subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority comes into picture and if the licensing authority finds that due to certain act whether it is affecting to an individual or public at large, may for the security of public peace or for public safety, may suspend or revoke the arms licence. This is a precautionary measure, therefore, it is not necessary that actual disturbance of public peace or public safety may occur. Therefore, even the criminal antecedent of the licensee are very important factor for consideration for granting license. In these circumstances, even pendency of a criminal case involving serious offence may be sufficient to suspend or revoke the arms licence. Similarly, even after the acquittal, the nature of acquittal may be an important factor to consider whether there may be a likelihood of disturbance of public peace and safety especially in cases where the offences are against the State, offence against public tranquillity, offences affecting human body, offences affecting life, and sexual offences etc.
18. The licensing authority is in the field, therefore, is the best judge who can assess the situation on the basis of material which are before him. Such an assessment cannot be substituted by this Court which is no way connected or does not have any inkling of situations. This Court cannot undertake any exercise to determine the facts leading to the subjective satisfaction of the licencing authority on the basis of situation then existing, except there are material to show as to how the satisfaction is perverse or based on no material. (See Jagat Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1997 (34) ACC 499).
19. There must be subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority that the licensee is not fit to continue holding of licence. If the licensing authority is satisfied of the fact that a continued existence of fire arms licence with a person charged with various offence may endanger security of public peace and public safety then revocation of licence under Section 17 cannot be said to arbitrary or without jurisdiction. (See 1999 SCC Online Pat 206, (1999) 3 PLJR 203, Tej Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others.)"
(emphasis by the court)
22. Likewise this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Gautam (supra) has held as under:
"22. Moreover, the judgment of Ram Pratap Singh (supra) would have no applicability inasmuch as the authority concerned has not cancelled the license of the petitioner merely on the ground of pendency of criminal case rather perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the competent authority has applied his mind to the reply filed by the petitioner meaning thereby that there has been objective consideration of all facts by the authority concerned and after considering the same, the authority has decided that continuance of arms license with the petitioner would cause threat to public peace and security and considering this aspect, the arms license of the petitioner has been revoked. These all are the findings of fact and in the absence of anything to show that the aforesaid inference drawn by the competent authority is per se illegal, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same as if sitting in appeal, since the scope of judicial review in such matters in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India is very limited and narrow.
23. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in the case of Thakur Das Yadav Vs. State of U.P and Ors passed in Writ-C No, 55352 of 2009 decided on 16.07.2024. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations of this Court in the case of Thakur Das Yadav (supra) are reproduced below:-
8. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 the Court said:
"Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere."
14. In Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-opeative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82, the Court has held that there is no justification for the High Court to substitute its view for the opinion of the Authorities/ Courts below as the same is not permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
16. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union (2000) 4 SCC 245, the Court observed that it is impermissible for the Writ Court to reappreciate evidence liberally and drawing conclusions on its own on pure questions of fact for the reason that it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by Tribunal. The findings of fact recorded by the fact finding authority duly constituted for the purpose ordinarily should be considered to have become final. The same cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of Writ Court to warrant those findings. At any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose no interference is called for. Even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken the High Court can not interfere.
22. In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432, Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction.
24. In Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF and others Vs. Surinder Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 244, Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 592 observed that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227."
23. From perusal of the aforesaid judgements it thus emerges that it is always the satisfaction of the authority concerned based on material before him to revoke the license in case he is of the view, as per the provisions of Section 17(3)(b) of the Act, 1959, that where it is in the security of public peace or for public safety to revoke the license, then the competent authority can pass an order for revocation of the arms license.
24. As already indicated the order impugned dated 08.01.2021 specifically records the reasons as to why the competent authority has found it necessary to cancel the license of the petitioner. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned as if sitting in appeal since the scope of judicial review in such matters in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and narrow.
25. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out.
26. The writ petition is dismissed.
27. The records are returned back to learned Chief Standing Counsel.
Order Date :- 6.2.2024 J.K. Dinkar