Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANISH MATHUR, J.
Rajesh Singh Sengar – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 29566 of 2021
Decided On : 03-03-2022
Arms Act, 1959 - Arms Rules, 2016 - Rule 17 - Registration/renewal of arms licence - Retirement from service - Cancellation of petitioner's licence - Petition has been filed against order rejecting petitioner's application for registration/renewal of arms licence at his present address in bearing Licence Revolver - Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was employed in Indian Air Force and was issued a licence for aforesaid revolver in year from District State of Haryana - He subsequently took voluntary retirement from service and started residing in district in State of U.P. in - It is submitted that arms licence was issued by District Magistrate Haryana up till which was thereafter renewed up till - It is submitted that in view of that petitioner subsequently started residing in State of U.P. he gave an application to District Magistrate for registration of arms licence in State of U.P - It is submitted that subsequently correspondence ensued between District Magistrate and District Magistrate regarding details of petitioner's licence and queries of District Magistrate were satisfied by District Magistrate where after petitioner's licence was renewed by District Magistrate and thereafter till order - Schedule II to the Arms Rules indicates the authorities concerned who have been empowered to register or renew the arms licences issued for various purposes. Item III of the said schedule clearly indicates that arms licence can be registered throughout the district or area of jurisdiction by the District Magistrate concerned. With regard to extension to whole of India, the State Government is empowered authority. Para 20,24.
Finding of the Court:
It is evident that renewal of petitioner's licence and subsequently were in conformity with Rules of 1962 - Since petitioner had already changed his permanent address prior to advent of Rules of 2016 there was no requirement for re-registration in terms of Rule 17 of Rules, 2016 which were notified subsequently - As such opposite parties clearly fell in error in holding that petitioner's licence was not registered in District - It is also evident that petitioner had submitted his application for renewal vide letter well before its expiry and same was required to be considered and decided by District Magistrate and not District Magistrate in view of Rules 54 of Rules 1962 and Rule 5 and 17 of Rules 2016 - Mere fact that petitioner's issuing authority has been indicated in N.D.A.L. Portal as Haryana is an error by opposite parties themselves benefit of which can not be extended to them to detriment of petitioner - It was the duty of opposite parties to have updated their records once petitioner's licence stood renewed by District Magistrate - Whether District Magistrate intimated the District Magistrate regarding renewal of petitioner's licence in and subsequently is also an inter departmental procedure with which petitioner has no concern.
Result: Petition succeeds and is Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
2. In pursuance to directions issued earlier, Mr. Ravindra Kumar District Magistrate, Unnao and Mr. Narendra Singh Officer-In-Charge, Arms/Additional District Magistrate, Unnao are present.
3. Petition has been filed against order dated 22nd March, 2021 rejecting petitioner's application for registration/renewal of arms licence at his present address in Uttar Pradesh bearing Licence No. 8820/DM/SSA Revolver No. S2252 N.P. bore. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed in Indian Air Force and was issued a licence for the aforesaid revolver in the year 2012 on 27th April, 2012 from District Sirsa, State of Haryana. He subsequently took voluntary retirement from service and started residing in district Unnao in State of U.P. in 2014. It is submitted that arms licence was issued by the District Magistrate, Sirsa, Haryana up till 2015 which was thereafter renewed up till 2016.
4. It is submitted that in view of the fact that petitioner subsequently started residing in State of U.P. he gave an application dated 12th January, 2015 to the District Magistrate for registration of the arms licence in State of U.P. It is submitted that subsequently correspondence ensued between the District Magistrate, Unnao and District Magistrate Sirsa regarding details of petitioner's licence and queries of the District Magistrate, Unnao were satisfied by District Magistrate, Sirsa whereafter petitioner's licence was renewed by the District Magistrate Unnao from 2016 till 2018 and thereafter till 25th March, 2021 vide order dated 6th June, 2018.
5. It is further submitted that due to licence expiring in March, 2021 petitioner gave another application to the District Magistrate, Unnao on 15th March, 2021 for renewal of licence but the District Magistrate Unnao instead of renewing rejected it on 22nd March, 2021 which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
6. It is submitted that the aforesaid order was challenged in the present writ petition on 14th December, 2021 whereafter prior to filing of counter affidavit, the District Magistrate, Unnao vide letter dated 7th January, 2022 recommended cancellation of petitioner's licence to the District Magistrate Sirsa on account of the fact that petitioner's renewal has already expired in March, 2021.
7. It is submitted that in pursuance to aforesaid recommendation, the District Magistrate, Sirsa vide order dated 7th February, 2022 has thereafter suspended petitioner's arms licence.
8. It has been further submitted that once petitioner has shifted his place of residence from Haryana and gave an application before the District Magistrate, Unnao intimating the change of residence on 12th January, 2015, the said authority was under statutory duty in terms of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Arms Act, 1959 to register petitioner's arms licence in the State of U.P. and to issue a new licence book. As such it is submitted that any default in new registration of petitioner's arms licence in State of U.P. and its subsequent renewal is owing to default on the part of opposite parties themselves. It is further submitted that once petitioner's arms licnece was renewed up till March, 2021 an application for further renewal was also given prior to expiring of the renewal period, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have renewed arms licence without requiring the District Magistrate Sirsa to cancel the arms licence.
9. Learned State Counsel upon instructions refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner. It is submitted that initial arms licence of petitioner was issued by the District Magistrate, Sirsa in terms of Schedule II to the Arms Rules, 2016. The initial period of licence was only up till 2015 whereafter it was extended under Item III of Schedule II (Rule 5 of the Arms Rules) for the whole of India by the State Government concerned. It is
Rule 17 of the Arms Rules, 2016 pertains to registration of licence outside licencing authority and change of address with existing licencing authority.4
Renewal of an arms licence can be denied based on public safety concerns and the applicant's criminal conviction, emphasizing the need for timely applications.
The failure to observe principles of natural justice in the renewal process of an arms license warrants quashing of the refusal and a fresh consideration of the application.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the refusal of firearm license renewal must align with the conditions stipulated in the Arms Act, and reasons for refusal must be in accord....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
