Court No. - 7

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2311 of 2018

Petitioner :- Ram Sahay Yadav

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shweta Singh,Sanjay Pratap Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed against the

order dated 08.08.2017 passed by respondent no.2-

District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, by which that authority

has rejected the application filed by the petitioner to

record change of weapon in the fire arm licence issued to

the petitioner with respect to SBBL gun.

2. Petitioner claims to be an ex-service man who had

been issued a licence to hold SBBL gun in the year 1992.

Subsequently, the petitioner desired to change his

weapon from SBBL gun to revolver/pistol. Therefore, he

filed an application dated 17.02.2017 before the licensing

authority to allow him to surrender his SBBL gun and

purchase a revolver/pistol. For that purpose, he required a

change to be permitted in the licence issued to the

petitioner. The said application has been rejected by the

impugned order stating that such a change could not be

recorded after the licence had been issued and after the

licence for SBBL gun had been utilised whereupon, the

SBBL gun had been purchased by the petitioner and

recorded in his fire arm licence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

inasmuch the petitioner is not comfortable using the SBBL

gun on account of his advanced age, the licensing

authority should have permitted him to change his fire arm

from SBBL gun to revolver/pistol after recording changes

in the fire arm licence.

4. Sri Shubhranshu Shekhar, learned Addl. Chief

Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that there is

no enabling provision under the Act or Rules as may allow

change to be recorded. Relying on Rule 18 of the Arms

Rules, 2016, it has been submitted that change in the

nature of weapon may be permissible only before the

weapon is actually purchased by a licensee in pursuance

of the licence issued to him.

5. In this regard, it has been submitted that first a licence

has to be issued with respect to a particular nature of

weapon and once such licence is issued that nature of

weapon is required to be purchased and the particulars of

the weapon recorded in the licence. Once that exercise is

completed and a particular weapon gets recorded in the

licence issued to any licensee, no further change is

permissible in that licence.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the impugned order, it appears that under

the scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder a

fire arm licence has to be issued with respect to a

particular nature of fire arm. For that purpose, the

prospective licensee has to first disclose the nature of fire

arm proposed to be acquired (for which he seeks the

licence). The licensing authority then applies his mind

thereto and grants the licence in appropriate cases. After

issuance of the licence, the licensee is enabled or

permitted by law to make purchase of a fire arm of the

description for which, the licence may have been issued.

That fire arm is required to be recorded on the licence

upon due verification of facts pertaining to the nature and

identity of the particular fire arm for which licence may

have been issued.

7. No other provision appears to exist to allow for any

alterations in the fire arm licence viz-a-viz the description

of the fire arm either as to its nature or individual identity.

8. At the same time, by virtue of provisions of Section 3 of

the Arms Act, 1959, a licensee may possess upto three

fire arms. However, the licence for each fire arm would

have to be separately issued.

9. Therefore, it follows, while it was open to the petitioner

to make a fresh application for grant of fire arm licence for

a revolver/pistol, he could not have sought an alteration in

the existing licence