ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019, by which amendment has been made in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 whereby for the words “three firearms”, the words “two firearms” have been substituted with effect from 14-12-2019 and eventually also seeks to quash the order dated 10-9-2020 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Collector directing the petitioner to deposit the third firearm in compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 read with the proviso appended to it.

2. The petitioner seeks to question the constitutional validity of the said amendment on the following factual backdrop: -

3. The petitioner is license holder of three firearms under license No.57/III/R/2004, which he has inherited from his father and eventually, got the license transferred in his name, which he is holding for significant period of time. It is the case of the petitioner that consequent to the impugned amendment in the Arms Act, 1959 by virtue of notification dated 13-12-2019 which came into force with effect from 14-12-2019, the petitioner’s capacity to retain firearms has been limited to two in place of three and if a person is holding more than two, then he is required to deposit the same with the concerned authority within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Act. It is the further case of the petitioner that the limitation of a person to hold firearms not more than two which has been introduced by the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 (for short, ‘the Amendment Act, 2019’) in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 has been made without reasonable basis as to class of the license holders since the said Act applies equally to all the license holders and is to the detriment of rightful license holders, who have been a peaceful holders of the firearms for generations without any complaints whatsoever being made against them. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Amendment Act, 2019 could not in any manner be suggestive of being reasonable as there appears to be no causal connection which could justify that limiting the number of firearms for a firearms license holder. If a person who is a holder of three firearms intends to commit a crime, he could very well do so with two firearms as well, but that does not justify the deprivation of peaceful possession of firearms from licensed holders who are holding more than two licensed firearms for a fairly long time. It is the further case of the petitioner that licensed firearms are strictly regulated under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and more-so the issuance of firearms in itself is a strict procedure which is the prime reason for an almost a nil percentage of population being license holder of a firearm. That being so, making it more stringent, best suits the wisdom of legislature, as to its citizen who are peaceful possessor of firearms, retracting the same is depriving of their right to peaceful possession of property. It has been further pleaded that by virtue of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, a property connotes everything which is subject to ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, the term property has a more extensive signification and according to its legal definition, consists in free use, enjoyment and disposition of a person of all its acquisitions without any control or diminution, which cannot be taken away without authority of law. It has been finally pleaded that the impugned amendment in Section 3(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 limiting the number of firearms to two is illegal, bad in law being arbitrary and reasonable. Failure to make a rational classification amongst the class effected by the Act, also results in inequality and is against the constitutional mandate of being unjust and unreasonable. There being no casual connection which could justify limiting the number of firearms fo