Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sr. No. 83 vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 8 August, 2025
Sr. No. 83
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2204
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP( C) No.2593/2023 Reserved on: 23.07.2025
CM No.6122/2025 Pronounced on: 08.08.2025
Wajid Bashir Khan, Age 40 years
S/O Bashir Ahmed Khan
R/O Village Sakhi Maidan,
Tehil Mendhar, District Poonch. ............Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. D. Qazi, Advocate.
Mr. Waseem A. Mir, Advocate.
Vs
1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
through Secretary, Home Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu.
3. District Magistrate, Poonch.
4. Senior Superintendent of Police, Poonch.
5. SDPO, Mendhar, District Poonch.
6. Station House Officer,
Police Station Mendhar,
District Poonch. ........Respondents
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner, through the medium of this petition, seeks the following
reliefs:-
i) Writ of certiorari to quash the Order dated 27.05.2023 passed by
Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in case titled Wajid Bashir Khan
Vs. District Magistrate, Poonch in File No.2022-23;
2 WP(C ) No.2593/20232025:JKLHC-JMU:2204
ii) Writ of certiorari to quash the Order No.DMP/J/3267-68 dated
23.12.2017 issued by the respondent No.3 by virtue of which the
representation of the petitioner seeking restoration of his Arms
License has been rejected illegally, arbitrary and without taking
into consideration the judgments mentioned in the representation;
&
iii) Writ of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents
particularly respondent No.3 to reconsider the case of the petitioner
for restoration of his Arms License No.119/C/DMP/2009 dated
08.03.2010 which has been revoked by virtue of Order
No.DMP/J/3267-68 dated 23.12.2017 passed by respondent No.3.
2. The case set up in the petition is that the petitioner is an elected DDC
member from 08 Mendhar (B) Constituency of Poonch District; that he had
applied for issuance of Arms License for self protection and accordingly, after
getting all the verifications done, respondent No.3 issued Arms License
No.119/C/DMP/2009 dated 08.03.2010 in favour of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner alleged that he was implicated falsely and frivolously in a
criminal case registered vide FIR No.208/2017, with the Police Station
Mendhar; that on the basis of a communication dated 07.12.2017 of Senior
Superintendent of Police, Poonch addressed to District Magistrate, Poonch,
requesting therein that as per intimation of SDPO Mendhar, the petitioner along
with some others is involved in case FIR No.208/2017 of Police Station
Mendhar, who was in possession of a pistol at the time of their attack upon
Tehsildar Mendhar, so his license may be cancelled to avoid any untoward
incident in future; and that acting upon the request of SSP Poonch, District
Magistrate Poonch, vide Order dated 23.12.2017 revoked the license issued in
favour of the petitioner.
3 WP(C ) No.2593/20232025:JKLHC-JMU:2204
4. Thereafter the petitioner represented before District Magistrate for
cancellation of revocation Order dated 23.12.2017 but the District Magistrate,
Poonch, rejected his representation on 03.01.2023 being devoid of merits; that
the appeal was preferred against Order dated 03.01.2023, which also came to be
dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu vide Order dated
27.05.2023, holding that the District Magistrate, Poonch has rightly cancelled
the license of the petitioner keeping in view the „security of public peace‟ or „for
public safety‟.
5. Petitioner seeking quashment of impugned Orders dated 23.12.2017
passed by respondent-DM & 27.05.2023 passed by respondent-Divisional
Commissioner challenged the same on the ground that respondent Nos.2 & 3
have not taken into consideration the judgments mentioned in his representation,
which stipulates that there remains no quarrel in the legal position that pendency
of a criminal case cannot be cited a ground for cancellation/ suspension of Arms
License under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959; that the report submitted by
the SHO concerned in which it has been categorically stated that during the
course of investigation and as per the statements of witnesses, offences under
Section 307 RPC and 3/25 IAA had not been proved against the petitioner, was
not taken into consideration.
6. Pursuant to notice, respondents filed their objections, wherein it is stated
petitioner was involved in the following criminal cases:
i) FIR No.31/2011 U/S 307/341/323/147/148 RPC of Police Station
Mendhar, wherein he was acquitted by the Trial Court on 17.12.2023;
ii) FIR No.194/2010 U/S 341/323 RPC registered with Police Station
Mendhar, which was compounded on 06.07.2013; &
4 WP(C ) No.2593/20232025:JKLHC-JMU:2204
iii) FIR No.208/2017 U/S 307/323/353/34 RPC, 3/25 Arms Act registered
with Police Station Mendhar, which is sub judice in the court of law.
It has been further asserted that as per the statements of the witnesses recorded,
it is found that on 26.11.2017 at 1900 Hours, the complainant- Executive
Magistrate (Tehsildar) Mendhar was busy in connection with the drain work of
Mendhar Town, in presence of local SDM, SDPO and police party and when
they all reached at Sariya market on construction site, 1. Wajid Bashir @ Tikkoo
and 2. Shaid Ahmed Khan @ Babul, with common and criminal intention
interrupted the ongoing govt. work; that Tehsildar requested them not to do so,
however, they became aggressive and started to beat him; that on seeing the
police party, they fled away on their vehicle bearing registration No.JK02BN-
0285; that a case was registered vide FIR No.31/2011 at Police Station Mendhar
for the commission of offences punishable U/Ss 307/341/323/147/148 RPC and
3/25 Arms Act; that during the course of investigation, on the basis of
statements of witnesses, offences U/S 353/332/34 RPC were proved against both
1. Wajid Bashir @ Tikkoo and 2. Shaid Ahmed Khan @ Babul Ss/O Mohd.
Bashir Khan R/O Sakhi Maidan Mendhar and the case is still sub-judice before
the Court of law.
7. Respondents have pleaded in their reply that the licence of the
petitioner was revoked, after proper verification and on the basis of the report
dated 07.12.2017 of SSP Poonch and report dated 20.12.2017 of the SDPO
Mendhar, in accordance with law; that his representation was rejected vide
impugned order dated 03.01.2023 after seeking report from SSP Poonch, vide
his report dated 10.05.2022 about the criminal background of the petitioner. It
was, finally, prayed that the petitioner‟s petition is misconceived and deserves
outright dismissal.
5 WP(C ) No.2593/20232025:JKLHC-JMU:2204
8. Mr. N. D. Qazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the arms
licence granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent-
District Magistrate, Poonch on 23.12.2017 without assigning the reasons, which
were warranted to be recorded as „public safety‟ is not the ground to revoke the
licence. He has argued that before revoking the licence by the District
Magistrate, the petitioner, who was licencee, had not been issued any show-
cause notice, which was required to be issued before ordering any revocation or
even suspension; that sub-section (3) of Section 17 of Arms Act deals with the
suspension or revocation of licence and provides that the licence can be
suspended or revoked in certain conditions including being the licencee of
unsound mind or necessary „for the security of the public peace‟ or „for public
safety‟ or licence having been obtained by the suppression of material/wrong
information at the time of applying for the licence. It was incumbent upon the
District Magistrate to issue a show-cause notice and afford a right of being
heard, in terms of principles of natural justice, which in the instant case has not
been done by the Magistrate.
9. He further argued that the petitioner even moved an application to the
District Magistrate for review/re-consideration of the order passed by the him,
who without assigning any reasons vide order dated 03.01.2023 rejected the plea
raised by the petitioner; that aggrieved of the same, the petitioner had filed an
appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu,
however, the Appellate Authority also, vide order dated 27.05.2023, declined to
intervene and dismissed the appeal observing that the same was devoid of
merits, as such, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to
seek setting aside of all the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner,
Jammu and District Magistrate, Poonch, and to direct the District Magistrate to
6 WP(C ) No.2593/20232025:JKLHC-JMU:2204
re-consider the case of the petitioner for restoration of his licence. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has, in support of his arguments, relied upon
judgments in ‘Bhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’ [S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.7422/2022; D.O.D. 24.05.2022]; and ‘Khem Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2005 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj) 907.
10. Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG, ex adverso, argued that since
the petitioner had misused his licenced weapon, as is borne out from the record,
the petitioner had pointed his licenced weapon at a team of officers headed by
Tehsildar in presence of SDM and SDPO Mendhar, when they had gone to the
Mendhar market for removal of encroachments in connection with drain work;
that the petitioner, who was stated to be an elected representative, misused his
licenced pistol, to attack the officers‟ party, who had gone on spot to oversee the
encroachment drive and it can be well imagined how the petitioner would use
his weapon against his fellow citizens on trivial issues, as such, his licence has
been rightly revoked by the licencing authority and upheld by the appellate
authority, as petitioner was found not to be competent to hold a licence, under
the apprehension that he may misuse the same. It was finally prayed that the
petition be dismissed.
11. Heard learned counsel for both sides at length, perused the record and
considered.
12. Petitioner had been issued Arms Licence No. 119/C/DMP/2009 on
08.03.2010 (for NPB Pistol/Revolver) and on being involved in a criminal case,
FIR No.208/2017 registered at Police Station, Mendhar on a written complaint
of Tehsildar, Executive Magistrate, Mendhar. It had been alleged by the
complainant-Tehsildar that a team of officers, in presence of the local SDM and
7 WP(C ) No.2593/20232025:JKLHC-JMU:2204
SDPO, while being busy in removal of encroachment, the petitioner along with
his brother came on spot and raised objections, entered into an altercation with
the officers and also pointed his licenced pistol on the complainant threatening
of dire consequences, as such, a case vide FIR No.20/2017 was registered for the
commission of offences under Sections 307, 323, 353, 34 RPC and under
Section 3/25 Arms Act at local police station.
13. On registration of the case, SSP Poonch vide his
No.SSP/Rdr/37/2017/25567-70/GB dated 07.12.2017 recommended the District
Magistrate for cancellation of licence of the petitioner for having been involved
in the aforesaid FIR as the petitioner was stated to have made a murderous
attack on Tehsildar Mendhar. Acting upon the recommendation of SSP Poonch,
the District Magistrate, Poonch vide order dated 23.12.2017 revoked the licence
issued in favour of the petitioner; that on being represented by the petitioner,
before the Magistrate for cancellation of revocation order, the District
Magistrate rejected his representation on 03.01.2023 being devoid of merits, as
such, he challenged the said revocation order through the medium of an appeal
before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, stating that he is a highly educated
and respectable person having B.Tech degree in Civil Engineering and had been
elected as Councilor from Mendhar (B) Constituency of District Development
Council of Poonch District, however, he was falsely and frivolously implicated
in criminal case FIR No.208/2017 of Police Station Mendhar; that merely on the
basis of registration of FIR, the respondent-District Magistrate on the police
recommendation revoked his arms licence in an arbitrary manner without
assigning any reason or affording him an opportunity of being heard.
8 WP(C ) No.2593/20232025:JKLHC-JMU:2204
14. The respondent-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, as an Appellate
Authority, holding that the petitioner being involved in the attack upon Tehsildar
Mendhar regarding which the aforesaid FIR has been registered and that at the
time of attack, the petitioner was in possession of a pistol, as such, the SSP
Poonch had recommended the cancellation of licence urgently, in order to avoid
any untoward incident in future; and that the District Magistrate had rightly
cancelled the licence of the petitioner keeping in view the „security of public
peace‟ and „for public safety‟.
15. In the cases of Khem Singh and Bhan Singh, relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner, it has been held that „there remains no quarrel in the
legal position that pendency of a criminal case cannot be cited a ground for
cancellation/rejection of arms licence under Section 17 of the Arms Act 1959.
The Division Bench of Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in Khem Singh‟s case has
held that in absence of any finding that cancellation of licence was necessary for
public safety, such order cannot be sustained.
16. The Order passed by District Magistrate on 23.12.2017 for revocation
states that SSP Poonch vide his communication dated 07.12.2017 and SDPO
Mendhar vide his communication dated 20.12.2017, reported that the petitioner
was involved in criminal case FIR No.208/2017 registered at Police Station
Mendhar for an attack on Tehsildar Mendhar; that the SSP recommended for the
cancellation of the licence. The District Magistrate having regard to the
recommendation of the police, under sub-section (3) (b) of Section 17 of the
Arms Act, 1959 revoked the licence of the petitioner. The provision invoked by
the Magistrate, who is the licencing authority, relates to suspension or
9 WP(C ) No.2593/20232025:JKLHC-JMU:2204
revocation of licence when the licencing authority deems it necessary for the
„security of public peace‟ or for „public safety‟.
17. Section 17 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, which deal with licenses for
facility of reference, is reproduced 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 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 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 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.
10 WP(C ) No.2593/20232025:JKLHC-JMU:2204
(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 licences 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.”
18. In the case on hand, it is not that the petitioner is involved in an
ordinary criminal case, but he was involved in a murderous attack, having his
licenced pistol in his hand, on an anti encroachment party by Tehsildar Mendhar
in presence of local SDM and SDPO; that he had made the attack and threatened
the party with the use of licenced pistol, as such, the petitioner had the cheeks to
show such a courage that he did not even spare the officers of the
administration, who are otherwise involved in the enforcement of law and order,
as such, the police had rightly recommended cancellation of the licence, as the
petitioner was found to be a threat to public peace and safety. Simply that the
petitioner is an elected representative in a council in the Panchayati Raj
Institution does not entitle him that he may brandish and use his licenced pistol,
to threaten even the officers, so much so, the Magistrate on spot in presence of
SDM/SDPO.
19. It is not that the complaint made by a private person, who may be
inimical to the petitioner, rather it has been made by an officer, who is Executive
Magistrate of the local area, as such, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner‟s licence of pistol had been rightly revoked/cancelled by the District
11 WP(C ) No.2593/20232025:JKLHC-JMU:2204
Magistrate Poonch on the recommendation of the SSP Poonch based on his
involvement in a murderous attack on the Magistrate brandishing his pistol as
the same amounts to threat to the security of the public peace and public safety.
Such a person, who has not spared even the local officers of administration from
his wrath, it can be imagined that how he may be dealing with the fellow
citizenry.
20. Holding licence of a fire arm, is not a fundamental right. Refusal to
grant licence on the ground of being unfit should be for very strong reasons like
involvement of the applicant in heinous crime. Though it is a beaten law that
mere involvement in a criminal case cannot be a sole ground for cancellation of
arms licence, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, however,
commission of offences is not the only ground which justifies cancellation of
licence. Prevention is part of Criminal Law, and action need not await
commissioning or non-commissioning of offences. Preventive and punitive
actions are justified in order to prevent a mischief. Legal niceties, de hors living
realities, cannot do honour to the rule of law. If there are good grounds for
cancellation of licence, cancellation would be justified. It is not the gift of
administrative authorities to see the future with a degree of precision, or to see
the visage of things to come. An element of subjective opinion is inevitable in
these regions. If the authority forms an opinion on reasonable premises and
objectively, the opinion cannot be assailed, only because it lacks the quality of
prediction.
21. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no charge
of murderous assault punishable under Section 307 RPC and under the Arms
Act were proved during the investigation against the petitioner in the case
12 WP(C ) No.2593/20232025:JKLHC-JMU:2204
registered against him does not hold ground in view of law laid down by the Full
Bench of Patna High Court in a case titled Kapildeo Singh v. State of Bihar
reported as 1987 Criminal Law Journal 960. It is well settled that grant of
arms licence is neither a fundamental right nor there is fundamental right to
carry Arms. It is privilege conferred by the Arms Act, grant of licence is always
subject to the satisfaction and discretion of the Licencing Authority.
22. So far as the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that no show-cause notice was issued or any enquiry was held before revocation
of the licence by the District Magistrate, the same is also no longer res integra in
view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court. A Full Bench
of the Allahabad High Court in a case titled ‘Chhanga Prasad Sahu v. State of
UP & Ors. reported as AIR 1986 ALL 142 has held that opportunity of hearing
to licencee is not permissible when there is a threat to the security and safety of
the public. Again, a Full Bench of the same Hon‟ble High Court in a case ‘Rana
Pratap Singh v. State of UP‘, reported 1996 Criminal Law Journal 665 held
that prior hearing is not a legal necessity in such cases. The Hon‟ble Bombay
High Court has gone to the extent that where a competent authority was satisfied
that the licencee was short-tempered in nature and possibility of misusing the
Revolver in anger and action of the cancellation of the licence was taken to
prevent danger and to ensure security, held proper in a case reported as 2009
Criminal Law Journal (NOC) 903.
23. The petitioner was not only found involved in the serious case
registered vide FIR No.208/2017 for the commission of attempt to murder but in
the year 2011 also, he was involved in a similar case registered vide FIR No.
31/2011, besides one more criminal case registered in the year 2010 vide FIR
13 WP(C ) No.2593/20232025:JKLHC-JMU:2204
No. 194/2010. In view of the given criminal background of the petitioner, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the District Magistrate had rightly
revoked the licence of the petitioner and the Divisional Commissioner had also
justly rejected the appeal.
24. Having regard to the foregoing reasons and discussions made
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order
passed by the District Magistrate in revoking the licence of the petitioner was
legal in nature, the review of revocation order was also dealt properly by the
Licencing Authority and the appeal has also been rightly rejected by the
Appellate Authority. The impugned orders, thus, do not warrant any interference
by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.
25. Viewed thus, the petition is, found to be without any merit and
substance and is, hereby, dismissed along with connected application(s). No
costs.
( ( M A Chowdhary )
Judge
Jammu
08.08.2025
Narinder/Raj Kumar
Whether order is speaking? Yes.
Whether order is speaking? Yes.