The court established that the refusal to renew an arms licence must be based on substantial evidence and proper application of discretion, not merely on pending criminal charges.

JUDGMENT

W. Diengdoh, J. - Facts of the case as could be seen from this petition is that the petitioner herein was an Arms Licence Holder of 2(two) firearms, being a Cogswell and Harrison (0.12 Bore DBBL Gun) and one .22 Bore Rifle, made in Belgium FNB. Licence for such arms was issued by the competent authority on 20.10.1998 being number LN23434A21119.

2. The said licence was supposed to be renewed every three years which was done so till 01.01.2019 valid upto 31.12.2021, whereupon, the petitioner has then submitted the licence in the Office of the District Magistrate, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong for the process of renewal of the same.

3. The petitioner was then communicated vide order No. AE.23/32/2019/45, dated 19th May 2023 issued by the District Magistrate, Shillong that his application for renewal was rejected on the ground that he is said to be involved in Rynjah P.S. Case No 16(03) of 2007 under Section 302 IPC and that the same will be renewed till such case is dropped or dismissed by the court.

4. The petitioner then filed a representation dated 05.06.2023 before the Deputy Commissioner/respondent No. 2 which was not responded to, compelling the petitioner to file another representation dated 20.07.2023 which was also not responded to, upon which the petitioner filed an appeal, dated 28.09.2023 before the respondent No. 2/Secretary, Home Department.

5. It was only after a number of representations and the appeal being filed did the respondent authority act upon the petition of the petitioner and vide communication dated 07.10.2023 issued by the Office of the District Magistrate, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, has rejected the prayer for renewal of the said Arms Licence and has also directed that such Arms be deposited at the Laitumkhrah Police Station which was done so by the petitioner. Situated thus, the petitioner has now approached this Court with this instant writ petition.

6. Mr. N. Khera, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a retired IPS Officer who had served the State for about 36 years or so, lastly in the capacity of the Director General of Police. Though, it is admitted that he is facing prosecution in connection with Sessions Case No. 76 (T) of 2013 under Sections 201/203 IPC before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shillong, it is however vehemently denied that he is actually involved in Rynjah P.S. Case No. 16(03) of 2007 under Section 302 IPC.

7. The learned counsel has also submitted that the grounds relied upon by the relevant authority for suspending the said Arms Licence of the petitioner is that he is involved in the said Rynjah P.S. Case No. 16(03) of 2007 and Section 14(3) read with Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 was invoked to justify the said action.

8. It is however submitted that since the initial issuance of the licence in the year 1998 till date, in fact, since the year 2007 when the petitioner is facing trial in the said criminal cases, there is nothing in evidence to prove that the petitioner is unfit to hold the said licence and also that by having such license, he is a threat to public peace and safety. Nothing in the impugned order was reflected that there was a proper application of mind by the relevant authority and no show cause or hearing was ever allowed to be presented by the petitioner.

9. The impugned orders have been passed in a mechanical manner without any application of judicious mind by the issuing authority, and considering the grounds and provisions of law invoked while suspending or refusing to renew the licence of the petitioner, no speaking order as is mandated under Section 17(5) of the said Arms Act, was passed to justify such action taken, further submits the learned counsel.

10. While referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3, the learned counsel has submitted that at para 7 and 9 of the same, the respondent No. 3 has averred therein that exclusive discretion lies with the Distri