HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V.K. MEHROTRA, J.
Ram Kripal Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14569 of 1986
Decided on : Mar 10, 1987
ARMS ACT - RENEWAL OF LICENCE - SECTION 15(3) - RULE 54(4) - DELAY IN APPLYING FOR RENEWAL - EXPLANATION - REFUSAL OF RENEWAL - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's application for renewal of his arms license was rejected due to delay in applying for renewal. The petitioner claimed he had a valid reason for the delay and was willing to pay any penalty imposed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the refusal of renewal of license solely on the ground of delay in applying for it, without considering the petitioner's explanation, was not valid.
Issues: Whether the licensing authority can refuse renewal of a license solely on the ground of delay in applying for it, without considering the applicant's explanation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 15(3) of the Arms Act and Rule 54(4) of the Arms Rules to hold that renewal of a license can be granted even where there has been some delay on the part of the applicant to apply for it if the delay is satisfactorily explained.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders rejecting the petitioner's application for renewal of license and directed the licensing authority to reconsider the application after considering the petitioner's explanation for the delay.
V.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. The matter has been heard further today. As jointly prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents, I proceed to decide it finally.
2. The petitioner owned a S.B.B.L. 12 Bore Gun No. 1628 covered by a licence issued to him under the provisions of the Arms Act bearing No. 5466. The licence was valid till April 23, 1979. In the normal course the petitioner should have applied for its renewal within the prescribed period but he failed to do so as, according to him, he was suffering from some disease for the treatment whereof he had gone away to Calcutta and came back to Allahabad only after about two years. As such, he made the application for renewal of licence on January 30, 1981. He also filed an affidavit before the District Magistrate who is the licensing authority in which he mentioned the aforesaid circumstance. In paragraph 4 of this affidavit, the petitioner also stated that in case any penalty was to be imposed upon him for making the application for renewal with delay, he was prepared to pay the same. The District Magistrate obtained a report from the Police Station Sarai Inayat Allahabad about it. In a report of November 5, 1981, submitted by that Police Station, it was mentioned that in not applying for renewal of the licence within the prescribed time, the petitioner had committed a default himself and was not a fit person to be given the licence. The Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, exercising the powers of District Magistrate, passed an order on December 25, 1981 saying" application rejected. Issue notice under rules ". The applicant assailed this order in Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 1981-82 before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division who is the appellate authority. The learned Commissioner disposed of the appeal on June 14, 1982 in which he mentioned that there was an abnormal delay in filing the renewal application and that the said application was rightly rejected. Further, that he saw no justification to interfere with the order of the Additional District Magistrate. It was then that the petitioner came to this Court for relief through the present petition.
Section 15 of the Arms Act provides for renewal of licences issued under the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 15 provides that " every licence shall, unless the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides in any case, be renewable for the same period for which the licence was originally granted and shall be so renewable from time to time, and the provisions of sections 13 and 14 shall apply to the renewal of a licence as they apply to the grant thereof ".
3. Under the Arms Rules, the matter of renewal of a licence is dealt with by Rule 54. Sub-Rule (2) contemplates that the authority issuing a licence shall ordinarily be responsible for watching all future renewals of the licence. Sub-Rule (4) then says that :
"The licensing authority may consider an application for renewal of a licence, if the period between the date of its expiry and the date of application is not, in his opinion, unduly long with due regard to the circumstances of the case, and all renewal fee for the intervening period are paid ; otherwise the application may be treated as one for grant of a fresh licence."
4. Rule 57 relates to the fees payable for the licences. In the proviso appended to sub-Rule (3) of this Rule, a provision has been made that the licensing authority may, unless the applicant satisfies the licensing authority that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period levy renewal fee at the rate specified in the Form. The Form spoken of is Form III prescribed by the Rules.
A perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear beyond doubt that normally renewal of the licence is to be; granted by the licensing authority, where the application for such renewal is made within the prescribed period, subject to the con
AI
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.