ORDER

1. In pursuance of the directions issued by the apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.7.2017 (Annexure P/1) with further direction to the respondents to grant N.P. Bore pistol/revolver license to the petitioner forthwith. The respondents have passed the impugned order dated 11.3.2015 (Annexure P/4) which is reproduced herein below for ready reference and convenience :-

e/;izns'k 'kklu

x`g foHkkx

ea=ky; oYyHk Hkou Hkksiky

&%%vkns'k%%&

Hkksiky] fnukad 22-7-2017

dzekad ,Q0 16&759@2016@ch&1@nks] jkT; 'kklu }kjk Jh ljnkj nyohj flag firk Jh ljnkj xqjkZ flag] fuoklh y{e.kiqjk phxkSj] jksM] Mcjk] ftyk Xokfy;j dks ,d voftZr cksj fiLVy@fjokYoj 'kL= yk;lsal lgefr ckcr izLrko dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA vkosnd dks fdlh O;fDr@lewg fo'ks"k ls [krjk ugha gksus ls 'kklu dh uohu 'kL= uhfr ds varxZr ik=rk ugha vkrh gSA vr,o vk;q/k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14¼1½] [k¼2½ ds rgr izLrko vkSfpR;iw.kZ ,oa lekèkkudkjd u ik;s tkus ds QyLo:i iw.kZ fopkjksijkar vekU; ¼fjtsDV½ fd;k tkrk gSA

2- Hkkjr ljdkj ds jkti= ljy Øekad 373] fnukad 24-7-2012 esa izdkf'kr x`g ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk dzekad lk-dk-fu% 585¼v½ fnukad 24 tqykbZ 2012 ds vuqlkj vfuok;Zr% ,u-Mh-,-,y- dk mi;ksx dj ,Iyhds'ku vk;-Mh- uEcj tujsV djus ds ckn gh 'kL= yk;lsal ds vekU; ¼fjtsDV½ ds vkns'k tkjh djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA

e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls

rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj

¼Mh-,l-eqdkrh½

voj lfpo

e-iz- 'kklu]x`g foHkkx

i`-Ø-,Q- 16&759@2016@ch&1@nks Hkksiky fnukad 22-7-2017

izfrfyfi&

1- vk;qDr] Xokfy;j laHkkx] Xokfy;j dh vksj muds i= Ø-D;w@ih, @vkElZ@9&5@130@2016@800] fnukad 5-7-2016 ds lanHkZ esa]

2- ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] ftyk Xokfy;j dh vksj muds Kkiu Ø- D;w@14@vkElZ @9&5@104@16@8519 fnukad 28-6-2016 ds lanHkZ esa] lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq vxzf"krA

3- fo'ks"k drZO;LFk vf/kdkjh] ekuuh; ea=h ¼x`g½ e-iz-] Hkksiky dh vksj lwpukFkZ

4- Jh ljnkj nyohj flag firk Jh ljnkj xqjkZ flag] fuoklh y{e.kiqjk phxkSj jksM] Mcjk] Fkkuk Mcjk] ftyk Xokfy;j dh vksj lwpukFkZA

5- xkMZ QkbZyA

voj lfpo

e-iz- 'kklu]x`g foHkkx

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily placed reliance on the provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 wherein, the reasons for refusal of the arms license has been specified. It is submitted that none of these reasons have been specified in the order impugned and the same is contrary to the provisions of law which is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that though the petitioner has raised the objection that while recommending his case for grant of license by concerned Authorities i.e. Commissioner, District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, the arms license has not been granted to the petitioner. On reading of impugned order (Annexure P/1), it is crystal clear that the competent authority has rightly passed the impugned order in accordance with notification, therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, which is relevant for the purpose of this case is reproduced herein below :-

“14. Refusal of licences-(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, licensing authority shall refuse to grant-

(a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition;

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

(i) Where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe-

(1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition,

or

(2) to be unsound mind, or

(3) to be for any reason unfit for a l