# Haseeb Ahmed @ Rassu v. The Commissioner, Kanpur Mandal Kanpur and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1468
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-12-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44148 of 2008
- **Bench:** Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/haseeb-ahmed-rassu-v-the-commissioner-kanpur-mandal-kanpur-and-others-42082
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Arms Act-Section 17-Cancellation of fire
arm license-license given considering
incident of murder of his family member
involvement in crime against world
without specific allegations and role can
not be ground for cancellation.

Held: Para 20

After going through the reply of the
petitioner to the show cause notice, it
transpires
that
on
account
of
two
murders in petitioner's family, for his
personal
safety,
the
petitioner
has
applied for firearm licence and he was
granted the same in the year 2000.
There
is
no
allegation,
except
the
present one, that the petitioner has ever
misused his firearm licence or have ever
committed any crime. Merely by saying
that a person has entered into world of
crime, cannot be said to be sufficient for
cancelling the firearm licence of a
person, which was granted after due
deliberations and due inquiry and after
verifying
the
credentials
of
the
petitioner. The apprehension cannot be
made basis for cancellation of the
firearm licence. The relevant section for
cancellation of firearm licence is very
unambiguous and clear in this regard.
Case la discussed:
2009 (4) ADJ 33 (LB)

## Text

1468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
complaint and have passed proper orders,
therefore,
the
matter
requires
no
interference.

6. Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla lastly
submitted that the domestic violence
report has been transferred on the request
of the respondent no.2 from the Protection
Officer, Gonda to the court of CJM Basti.
This could not be done and the Protection
Officer has no jurisdiction to act on the
request of the respondent no.2. In my
opinion, when the judicial matter under
section 12 of the Act was pending in the
court of CJM, who was competent to
decide the question of domestic violence,
the submission of the report even on the
request of the respondent no.2 to the court
of CJM, Basti can not be said to be
contrary to law.

7. The petition has no merit and is
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44148 of 2008

Haseeb Ahmed @ Rassu
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The
Commissioner,
Kanpur
Mandal
Kanpur and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shailendra Singh
Sri Ankur Goyal

Counsel for the Respondnets:
C.S.C.

Arms Act-Section 17-Cancellation of fire
arm license-license given considering
incident of murder of his family member
involvement in crime against world
without specific allegations and role can
not be ground for cancellation.

Held: Para 20

After going through the reply of the
petitioner to the show cause notice, it
transpires
that
on
account
of
two
murders in petitioner's family, for his
personal
safety,
the
petitioner
has
applied for firearm licence and he was
granted the same in the year 2000.
There
is
no
allegation,
except
the
present one, that the petitioner has ever
misused his firearm licence or have ever
committed any crime. Merely by saying
that a person has entered into world of
crime, cannot be said to be sufficient for
cancelling the firearm licence of a
person, which was granted after due
deliberations and due inquiry and after
verifying
the
credentials
of
the
petitioner. The apprehension cannot be
made basis for cancellation of the
firearm licence. The relevant section for
cancellation of firearm licence is very
unambiguous and clear in this regard.
Case la discussed:
2009 (4) ADJ 33 (LB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J. )

1. This writ petition has been filed
with the following prayers:

"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari calling for the
records of the case and quashing the
imkpugned order dated 29.2.2008 passed
by respondent no. 1 and order dated
25.10.2007 passed by respondent no. 2
(Annexure 5 and 2 to this writ petition)

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the
nature
of
writ
of
mandamus
commanding the respondents to release
the weapon of the petitioner during the
3 All] Haseeb Ahmed @ Rassu V. The Commissioner, Kanpur Mandal Kanpur & others
1469
pendency of the writ petition before this
Hon'ble Court.

C. Issue any other writ, order or
direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.

D. An award of the petition in favour
of the petitioner."

2. Vide order dated 25.10.2007 the
petitioner's
firearm
license
no.
53
D.B.B.L.,gun no. 29450 was cancelled by
the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat.
Whereas vide order dated 29.02.2008
petitioner's appeal against the said order
has been dismissed by the Commissioner,
Kanpur Division, Kanpur.

3. On an application of the petitioner
for firearm licence, a license no. 53 of
2000 was issued to the petitioner for
having DBBL gun. The license of the
petitioner was renewed from time to time
and it was lastly renewed on 31.12.2008.
It appears that a first information report
was lodged against the unnamed persons
bearing case Crime No.50 of 2007 under
Section 324/308 I.P.C., taking note of that
the Superintendent of Police Kanpur
Nagar has sent a report on 02.07.2007 to
the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat on
the basis of the report of Station House
Officer dated 13.06.2007 stating therein,
that the licencee no. 53 of 2000 has now
entered in the crime, therefore, having
license with him will be detrimental to the
pubic peace and safety. Taking note of
that, a show cause notice was issued to
the petitioner by the District Magistrate
requiring the petitioner to show cause as
to why his license of D.B.B.L., gun be not
cancelled.

4. The petitioner, herein, has filed a
detailed reply on 9.8.2007, denying the
allegation of the show cause notice. It has
been stated in the notice that the father
and dada of the petitioner were Gram
Pradhans of the village about 30 years.
However, dada of the petitioner, late
Sultan Ahmed, was murdered by one
Bikar
Ahmed,
Saqil
and
Atik
on
11.1.1994. The Pairvi of that case was
being done by the father of the petitioner.
Because of that, he was also murdered, in
which the petitioner's brother, Mujib
Ahmed, is an eye witness. Taking all
those into consideration, the firearm
licence was issued to the petitioner for
personal security and safety of the
petitioner. It is also stated that the brother
of the petitioner has complained against
the Station House Officer, Sri B.D.
Awasthi, and in inquiry, he was found
guilty and later on he was transferred. The
petitioner, being brother of Mujib Ahmed
@ Guddu, has been made victim and
proceeding for cancellation of the firearm
licence of the petitioner has been initiated.
It has also been stated that the petitioner
was neither present on the spot when the
incident took place nor he ever had used
firearm. It is also contended that except
the present case, on account of which,
notice has been issued to the petitioner, no
other F.I.R. has been lodged against the
petitioner. Petitioner is a peace loving
citizen
and
his
entire
family
is
respectable, but due to election enmity,
and hostility of police against petitioner's
brother, this proceeding has been initiated
against the petitioner. It is also stated that
the petitioner has never breached any
condition of the licence.

5. The District Magistrate, after
considering the contents of show cause
notice, police report and the petitioner's
1470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
reply, has come to the conclusion that
continuance of the firearm licence of the
petitioner will not be in public interest
and safety and cancelled the same by the
impugned order dated 25.10.2007.
The appeal filed by the petitioner too was
dismissed
by
the
Divisional
Commissioner on 29.2.2008.

6. While assailing these impugned
orders, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that merely on the basis of the
apprehension of breach of peace and
public safety, the firearm licence of the
petitioner could not have been cancelled.
There is also no material on record to
suggest that the petitioner is a man of
criminal nature, which has been made
basis for cancellation of the firearm
licence of the petitioner. It is also
contended that for the cases lodged
against the petitioner's brother, the
petitioner cannot be blamed as he is living
independently of his brother. Therefore,
also this could not have been made basis
for cancellation of firearm licence.

7. In the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, merely on
account of the apprehension, lodging of
an F.I.R., the firearm licence cannot be
cancelled. It is also submitted that before
cancelling
the
licence,
the
District
Magistrate ought to have recorded his
own satisfaction with respect to the
breach of peace and public safety on the
basis of the material available on record,
but the District Magistrate, without
recording
his
satisfaction,
after
considering the material available on
record, has merely endorsed the report of
the police authorities and passed the
impugned order. The appellate court too
has committed the same error and
dismissed the appeal. In the submissions
of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
impugned orders are unsustainable and
deserve to be quashed.

8. Refuting the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing
Counsel
submits
that
the
petitioner and the petitioner's brother are
living together and since the petitioner's
brother is a notorious criminal and large
number of cases are pending against him,
therefore, continuance of firearm licence
in favour of the petitioner will not be in
public interest, public peace and safety. In
the submissions of the learned Standing
Counsel, the orders passed by the
authorities cannot be said to be arbitrary
as the same have been passed only after
considering the material available on
record. Therefore, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.

9. I have heard Sri Shailendra Singh,
holding brief of Sri Ankur Goyal, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents and
perused the records.

10. In substance, the proceeding of
cancellation of firearm licence of the
petitioner has been initiated on account of
case crime no. 50 of 2007 under sections
324 and 308, I.P.C. Taking note of the
aforesaid F.I.R., a show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner, indicating therein
that the petitioner has entered into crime
world and continuance of firearm licence
in his favour would not be in the public
interest, public peace and safety. The
copy of the F.I.R. has been brought on
record as Annexure 6 to this writ petition,
in which balled allegations have been
made against the Muslim community.
3 All] Haseeb Ahmed @ Rassu V. The Commissioner, Kanpur Mandal Kanpur & others
1471

11.

The
power
of
variation/suspension and revocation of
licence is vested with the licensing
authority but licensing authority can do so
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
contained under Section 17 of the Arms
Act, 1959. For apprehension, the relevant
portion of Section 17 is reproduced
below:

"17.
Variation,
suspension
and
revocation of licenses :- (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 period 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 subsection (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 subsection (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.

(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.
1472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

(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."

12. Sub section (3) (a to d) of
section 17 deals with conditions for which
licensing authority may pass an order for
suspending, revoking / varying the
licence. Sub section (4) empowers the
licensing authority to revoke a licence on
the application of holder thereof. Sub
section (5) provides that if the licensing
authority makes an order varying the
lincence under sub section (1) of section
17 or an order suspending or revoking a
licence under sub section (3), it shall
record, in writing, the reasons thereof and
furnish to the holder of licence with the
demand of brief statement of the same,
unless in any case the licensing authority
is of the opinion that it will not be in
public interest to furnish such statement.

13. From the cogent reading of sub
section (1) to sub section (5), it will
transpire that for various reasons, as
enumerated in sub section (3) (a to d), the
licensing authority may suspend the
licence and for those reasons, after a show
cause, cancel the licence also, but before
cancelling the same, a show cause notice
is necessary to the licensee and after
having the reply, in view of the language
used in sub section 3(a) of section 17, the
licensing authority must get him satisfy
and record a definite satisfaction to the
effect that the continuance of the licence,
would not be in the interest of public
peace or public safety.

14. Here in this case, it appears, the
action has been taken, taking note of the
provisions contained in sub section (b) of
sub section (3), the licensing authority has
issued a notice that continuance of the
firearm licnece would not be in the
security of the public peace and public
safety. The basis for such notice is the
unnamed F.I.R.

15. I have gone through the
impugned order passed by the District
Magistrate (the licensing authority). The
licensing authority has not recorded his
own satisfaction after considering the
material available on record and only
observed as under while cancelling the
licence :
3 All] Haseeb Ahmed @ Rassu V. The Commissioner, Kanpur Mandal Kanpur & others
1473

^^mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij 'kL= vuqKkih
glhc vgen mQZ jklw iq= rkSlhQ vgen fuoklh
xzke o Fkkuk lV~Vh dks U;k;ky; }kjk nh xbZ uksfVl
fnukad 06-07-2007 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gS rFkk mldh
Mh0ch0ch0,y0 xu ua0 29450 ds ykblsUl ua0 53
dks yksd 'kkfUr o yksd lqj{kk ds vuqj{k.k gsrq
rRdky izHkko ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA Fkkuk/;{k
lV~Vh dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn vuqKkih
dks mijksDr 'kL= vHkh rd u tek fd;k x;k gks
rks rRdky tek djk ysaA vkns'k dh ,d izfr iqfyl
v/kh{kd dkuiqj nsgkr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d
dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr dh tk;A 'kL= fyfid vkns'k
dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djsa ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh
;g i=koyh nkf[ky n¶rj gksA^^

16. From the reading of the
aforesaid lines of the order of the District
Magistrate, it transpires that the District
Magistrate has only confirmed the police
report and contents of the show cause
notice. The confirmation of the police
report and the contents of show cause
notice cannot be put at par with the word
''satisfaction.' Satisfaction of the District
Magistrate is required for cancellation of
firearm licence in view of sub section (3)
(a) of section 17. The satisfaction ought to
have been recorded taking note of the
petitioner's reply and the police report.

17. Here the word, ''satisfy' has been
mentioned
and
the
word,
''satisfy/satisfaction' cannot be synonyms
of word ''apprehension.' The initiation of
the
proceeding
on
the
basis
of
apprehension cannot be ruled out, but
apprehension has to be proved with
supporting materials, in which the police
has utterly failed and the District
Magistrate has erred in cancelling the
firearm licence without recording the
satisfaction. It is well settled that the right
to life and liberty have been guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and the firearm licences are granted
for personal safety and security. As has
been noticed here in this case, after the
consecutive murders in the petitioner's
family, the firearm licence to the
petitioner was granted and that could not
be cancelled in a way in which it has been
cancelled.

18. A Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Satish Singh Vs. District
Magistrate, Sultanpur, 2009 (4) ADJ 33
(LB), has observed as under:-

"Needless to say that right to life and
liberty are guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and the arms
licenses are granted for personal safety
and security after due inquiry by the
authorities
in
accordance
with
the
provisions contained in Arms Act, 1959.
The provisions of section 17 of the Arms
Act with regard to suspension or
cancellation of arms licence cannot be
invoked lightly in an arbitrary manner.
The provisions contained under section
17 of the Arms Act should be construed
strictly and not liberally. The conditions
provided therein, should be satisfied by
the authorities before proceeding ahead
to cancel or suspend an arms licence.

We may take notice of the fact that
for any reason whatsoever, the crime rate
is raising day by day. The Government is
not in a position to provide security to
each and every person individually. Right
to possess arms is statutory right but right
to life and liberty is fundamental
guaranteed
by
Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India. Corollary to it, it is
citizen's right to possess firearms for their
personal safety to save their family from
miscreants. It is often said that ordinarily
in a civilized society, only civilized
persons require arms licence for their
safety and security and not the criminals.
1474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Of course, in case the Government feels
that arms licence are abused for oblique
motive
or
criminal
activities,
then
appropriate measures may be adopted to
check such mal-practice. But arms licence
should not be suspended in a routine
manner mechanically, without application
of mind and keeping in view the letter and
spirit of section 17 of the Arms Act."

19. The police has utterly failed to
bring any material on record to indicate
that except the unnamed F.I.R., on
account of which proceeding has been
initiated, there was anything against the
petitioner. Not even a single incident has
been cited in the show cause notice or in
the order of the District Magistrate. The
lodging of the F.I.R. or pendency of the
cases against the petitioner's brother, in
my considered opinion, should not have
been made basis for cancelling the firearm
licence of the petitioner.

20. After going through the reply of
the petitioner to the show cause notice, it
transpires that on account of two murders
in petitioner's family, for his personal
safety, the petitioner has applied for
firearm licence and he was granted the
same in the year 2000. There is no
allegation, except the present one, that the
petitioner has ever misused his firearm
licence or have ever committed any
crime. Merely by saying that a person has
entered into world of crime, cannot be
said to be sufficient for cancelling the
firearm licence of a person, which was
granted after due deliberations and due
inquiry and after verifying the credentials
of the petitioner. The apprehension cannot
be made basis for cancellation of the
firearm licence. The relevant section for
cancellation of firearm licence is very
unambiguous and clear in this regard.

21. In view of the foregoing
discussions and taking note of the dictum
of Division Bench of this Court, I am of
the considered opinion that the orders
impugned
dated
29.2.2008
and
25.10.2007 are unsustainable in the eye of
law and the same are being quashed. The
writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
District Magistrate is directed to take
follow up action in accordance with law
by restoring the petitioner's firearm
licence.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SURENDRA KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54455 of 2010

Akhilesh Pathak

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shyam Sunder Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Principle of Natural Justice-auction sale
of Bolero Jeep-after having valuation
report
from
Transport
Authorityvaluation fixed as Rs. 75000/-petitioner
being highest bidder for Rs. 85000/-
deposited
15000/-1⁄4

amount
immediately-balance 3⁄4 amount of Rs.
70000/-deposited within time-acceptedsubsequent
on
political
pressurecancellation of auction proceeding and
direction for re-auction on ground of low
amount -behind the back of petitionersheld--illegal-perverse, unjust, arbitrary