IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J.
Adhish Krishan S/o Ajeet Kumar Yadav – Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WP (C) No. 3609 of 2024
Decided On : 23-07-2024
(A) Arms Act, 1955 - Sections 13 and 14 - Writ petition against dismissal of arms licence application - Petitioner, a Manager, sought a licence for carrying cash but failed to demonstrate a life threat - Licensing Authority's discretion upheld as no compelling reason was shown for the licence - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 2, 8, 10, 12)
(B) Licensing Authority's obligations - The authority must assess the applicant's genuine need for a licence based on the nature of their profession and circumstances. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for an arms licence citing the need to carry cash while traveling across states, but the application was dismissed without reasons recorded.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition as the petitioner did not demonstrate a life threat or compelling reason for the licence.
Issues: Whether the Licensing Authority was required to grant the licence without a stated reason for refusal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Licensing Authority has discretion to grant or refuse a licence based on the applicant's demonstrated need and circumstances.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed against order dated 08.02.2024 passed by respondent No. 1/Commissioner in appeal filed under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1955 (hereafter referred to as “the Arms Act”) whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working on the post of Manager in a reputed company. He has to travel within the State of Chhattisgarh, State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Uttar Pradesh and also has to carry large amount of cash with him. Petitioner, looking to the nature of job of carrying large amount of cash with him has submitted an application before the Licensing Authority under Section 13 of the Arms Act for grant of licence of 12 bore rifle/revolver. The application was processed. However, the Licensing Authority dismissed the application for grant of licence without there being any reason recorded. He contended that unless and until the reasons as provided under Section 14 of the Arms Act are available, the application for grant of licence ought to have been allowed. He also contended that appellate authority also without considering the provision under the Arms Act in its true perspective has dismissed the appeal and, therefore, the order impugned passed by the appellate authority as also Licensing Authority be set aside and the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Arms Act for grant of arms licence be allowed. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Gurvinder Singh vs. District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, 2015 SCC Online Utt. 789.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the Licensing Authority as also the appellate authority after considering the provision under the Arms Act and Rules framed thereunder have passed the order. He also contended that in the application, the petitioner has not specifically pleaded of any life threat. The only reason assigned for the arms licence is that he has to travel in State of Chhattisgarh, State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Uttar Pradesh with large amount of cash which, in the present days, is not required. Amount/cash can be transferred from one bank account to another bank account online. Licensing Authority as also the appellate authority has considered the Circular issued in this regard as to the limitation for issuance of arms licence based on population of the city/town where applicant resides. Order under challenge is strictly in accordance with law, hence, does not call for any interference.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.
5. Grievance of the petitioner is that he submitted an application for grant of licence under the Arms Act which was dismissed. Before proceeding further, I find it appropriate to go through the relevant provision under the Arms Act as also the Arms Rules, 2016 (hereafter referred to as “the Rules of 2016”) framed thereunder. Section 13 of the Arms Act deals with grant of licence. Applicant has to submit an application under Section 13 (1) of the Arms Act before Licensing Authority. Section 13 (2) of the Arms Act provides that after receipt of an application for grant of licence, the Licensing Authority shall call for report from the Officer-In-Charge of nearest police station and the report is to be forwarded by the said Officer-in-Charge within the prescribed time. Under Section 13 (2A) of the Arms Act, after considering the report received on such inquiry to be conducted by Licensing Authority, the Licensing Authority may either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same. Section 13 (3) of the Arms Act provides categorization of the arms/ammunition and circumstances under which licence is to be issued by the Licensing Authority.
6. Relevant portion of Section 13 of the Arms Act is extracted below for ready reference:
AI
The Licensing Authority has discretion to grant or refuse an arms licence based on the applicant's demonstrated need and circumstances, which must be assessed appropriately.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the licensing authority must provide reasons for refusal of a licence application as mandated by Section 14(3) of the Arms Act, 1959.
The rejection of an arms license application must be based on grounds that have a nexus to the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, particularly Sec.14, and cannot be based on non-germane grounds such a....
Threat perception is not a requirement for granting an arms license under the Arms Act.
Possession of a crop protection firearm licence cannot be a bar to possess a self-defence licensed weapon.
Point of Law : Perverse or an illegal decision of the authority can be judicially reviewed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.