SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(Ker) 249

Judges : V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR
K.S.ABDULLA - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 4826 of 1969
Decided On : 12/08/1971
Advocates Appeared :
T. S. Venkiteswara Iyer; R. C. Plappilly; P. K. Balasubramanian; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondent

The refusal of a license under the Arms Act 1959 must comply with the statutory requirements, including recording reasons for refusal and considering the necessity for public safety.

Headnote:

Refusal of Licence - Arms Act 1959 - S.14(1)(b)(ii)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's application for a gun license was rejected by the Special Secretary to Government, citing public safety as the reason. The petitioner argued that the refusal deprived him of the right of appeal provided under S.18 of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the refusal of the license did not comply with the statutory requirements under S.14(3) of the Arms Act 1959, as the licensing authority failed to record reasons for the refusal and did not apply its mind to the requirement of public safety.

Issues: The main issue was whether the refusal of the license complied with the principles of natural justice and the statutory provisions of the Arms Act 1959.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the refusal of a license must comply with the statutory requirements, including recording reasons for refusal and considering the necessity for public safety. The court also noted that the refusal did not comply with the requirement of S.14(3) of the Act.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the rejection order, and directed the 2nd Respondent to dispose of the application in accordance with the law.

Judgment :-

1. The larger question that has been debated in this writ petition is whether the refusal of licence to the petitioner for a gun under S.14 (1) (b) (ii) of the Arms Act 1959 was justified or proper. After bearing Counsel, I am satisfied that without going into this larger question, this writ petition can well be disposed of on a shorter and narrower ground.

2. Ext. P1 is a copy of the petitioner's application for licence for a gun (pistol). It sets out the reasons why the petitioner felt it necessary to be in possession of a pistol. The application was rejected by Ex. P2 order, passed by the Special Secretary to Government, which reads:

"I am directed to invite your attention to the application cited and to inform you that your request for the grant of a licence to possess one pistol is hereby rejected on the ground that Government deem it necessary for public safety to refuse the grant of licence to you."

The petitioner complained that as a result of the disposal of the application by the Secretary to Government, the petitioner had been deprived of his right of appeal provided under S.18 of the Act, read with R.5 of the Rules framed thereunder. But this objection. I am afraid, is untenable. S.2 (f) of the Act defines a'licensing authority' as 'including the Government'. It is therefore clear that the Government can well be the licensing authority, and if, as such licensing authority, it proceeds to deal with the application for licence, the question whether any appeal would lie or not, must essentially depend upon the statutory provisions regulating and governing appeals. R.5 of the rules, which delineates the appellate authority against the orders of the licensing authority does not seem to provide for any appeal, in cases where an application for licence has been dealt with by the Government; and S.18 which provides for appeals, only enacts that appeals shall be governed and regulated in the manner prescribed by the rules. As pointed out in G. Raja Reddy v. Collector, Nizamabad (AIR. 1960 A.P. 384) the appeal is, after all, only a creature of the statute; and if the statute itself does not provide for any appeal in any particular case, the petitioner cannot make any grievance of the same. This objection of the petitioner is therefore groundless.

3. That takes me to the larger question agitated in this writ petition namely, that even in refusing an application or a licence on the ground that it was in the interest of the public, or public safety to grant one, the licensing authority was bound to observe the principles of natural justice and to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to make his representations before be was denied the licence sought for, on grounds which appeared to the licensing authority to render him unfit for the grant. The relevant statutory provisions in so far as they are material read thus:

14 (1) Notwithstanding anything in S.13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant

(a) xxxxxxx

(b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,

(i) x x x x

(ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence.

(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person 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."

The section itself does not expressly enjoin notice of the application or the affording of any opportunity before the refusal of the licence. But these were sought to be implied on the ground that the licensing authority had to function quasi judicially, which therefore, brought in these requirements as part of the rules of natural justice. My attention was drawn to a series of cases, where, in connection with applications for renewal of a licence, or for cancellation of a licence it had b


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top