The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for individual consideration of cases, passing speaking orders, and adherence to relevant statutory provisions and judgments in matters related to firearms licenses under the Arms Act, 1959.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The matter comes up on an application (Inward No. 01/2019) preferred on behalf of the petitioner for early hearing of the writ petition.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally today itself.

4. Counsel for the parties submits that the controversy involved in this petition is squarely covered by decision rendered by this Court in Goverdhan Singh Parihar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4452/2019, decided on 10.11.2021), which reads as follows:-

"The present petitioners have a common grievance regarding the arms license.

Learned counsels for the present petitioners have laid the grievances with regard to matters relating to licenses of firearms under the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter "the Act of 1959"), before the Court, viz. inaction and unjustified delay in issuance of arms license/no opportunity of hearing given and despite pendency of only one criminal case/rejected without cause or speaking order/renewal denied despite acquittal in criminal cases/renewal denied despite pending criminal case related to gambling and thereby not impacting public safety/no transfer to legal heir despite surrender of old license/no grant or refusal of application for license and inordinate delay, despite prescribed statutory time period of 60 days asunder Schedule V, of the Arms Rules, 2016 ("the 2016 Rules").

Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that there is a statutory provision for persons to apply and acquire a firearm license, and thus, the respondents ought to maintain maximum transparency, while passing the orders, whereas the impugned orders have been passed without making any individual consideration of the relevant criteria.

Learned counsel for the respondents submit that there is no absolute right of any person to acquire an arms license and the respondents have every right to objectively decide each case, while taking into consideration the past record of the person seeking such license as well as the pendency of proceedings, if any.

Learned counsels for the petitioners at this stage, submit that it would be sufficient if the respondents are directed to pass fresh orders on the petitioners' cases individually, while keeping in the view the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Khem Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2005 (2) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 907. This Court's attention is drawn to Para 5 of Khem Singh (supra)-

"Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the license holder is not sufficient for cancelling the license. A license can be revoked u/s. 17(3) if the licensing authority deem it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. In absence of any finding that cancellation was necessary for public peace or public safety, such an order is liable to be quashed."

Learned counsels for the petitioners also drew the attention of this Court towards two orders passed in Sarjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. SB Civil WP No. 110/2011 and Gurdev Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. SB Civil WP No. 5681/2005 this Court passed in 2014, and 2016 respectively.

In Sarjeet Singh (supra), the Court observed the following-

"There remains no quarrel in the legal position that pendency of a criminal case cannot be cited as a ground for cancellation/suspension of Arms License under Section 17 of the Arms Act 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959'). The Division Bench of this Court in Khem Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. has held that pendency of criminal case against an incumbent is not a ground of cancellation of Arms License under Section 17(3)(B) of the Act of 1959. The Court has further held that in absence of any finding that cancellation was necessary for public safety such order cannot be sustained."

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

Section 17 of