Fulfillment of the criteria specified in the new rules is essential for the issuance of arms and ammunition dealership licenses.

JUDGMENT :

1. All the petitioners, having been licensed as arms and ammunition dealers in terms of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Arms Rules, 1962, pleading identical and joint cause of action based on same facts and grounds, have moved this petition seeking following writs:

a. Certiorari quashing the Circular No.01-Home of 2023 dated 10.04.2023 issued by the Respondent No.1 whereby the directions have been issued to the District Magistrates that arms and ammunition dealers be not allowed to carry on their trades and transactions in absence of valid Arms License in Form VIII as prescribed under the Arms Rules, 2016 till the licensing process in favour of the intending prospective licensees is completed in terms of the Arms Rules, 2016 along with other directions contained in the said circular;

b. Certiorari quashing the Circular No.61-67/Arms/DMJ/23 dated 12.07.2023 issued by the Respondent No.2 in compliance to the Circular No. 01-Home of 2023 dated 10.04.2023 issued by the Respondent No.1; and

c. Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to operate their licenses till such time, respondents complete the process of conversion of the licenses of the petitioners in pursuance to the process initiated in the year 2017 as per the recommendations of the District Magistrate, Jammu, made in the year 2017 vide his communication bearing File No.1423/DMJ/2016 dated 23.03.2017”.

2. It has been pleaded that the petitioners, having been issued licenses as arms and ammunition dealers, are aggrieved of the Govt. Circular No. 01-Home of 2023 dated 10.04.2023 issued by the Home Department whereby the valid license holders of arms sale in Form XI and having been issued the Unique Identification Numbers (UINs) have been asked to halt their operations and they are also further aggrieved of Circular No.61-67/Arms/DMJ/23 dated 12.07.2023 issued by respondent no.2, whereby directing the petitioners to halt their operations. The petitioners have asserted that as per the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules 1962, the dealers were being issued licenses in Forms XI, XII, XIII and XIV depending upon the nature of the weapons to be dealt with, as also the service to be provided by the dealer. The licenses in favour of the petitioners herein were issued on different dates and thereafter the same were being renewed after every three years as the license once issued was to remain valid for three years and thereafter it was required to be renewed further for a period of three years; that however, in the year 2018, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India issued a Notification providing for renewal of the licenses for a period of five years instead of three years; that in the year 2016, new Rules known as Arms Rules 2016 were framed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India framed under Section 44 of the Arms Act, 1959 superseding the Arms Rules 1962.

3. Petitioners pleaded next that after the enforcement of new set of Arms Rules 2016, every licensee was required to be registered with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and it was required to be issued Unique Identification Number (UIN); in terms of the Arms Rules 2016, it was specifically provided that the arms and ammunition dealers would be issued composite licenses in Form VIII for dealer license and for deposit of arms and ammunition, as prior to these rules, separate licenses were being issued for arms and ammunition dealers, for sale and keep and for repair; that the existing license holders in Form XI to XIV were required to submit an application in Form A-8 for arms license and in Form VIII by signing a declaration.

4. It was claimed that the petitioners herein were already having the licenses, as such, they submitted their applications to District Magistrate Jammu for conversion of their licenses into Form VIII under the new arms rules and also complied with the requirements of the rules as prescribed in Form A-8; that the petitioners were issued UINs and they were p