IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2960 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S. REDDY GUN HOUSE, REGISTERED COMPANY'S ACT 2013, OFFICE AT NO.21, GROUND FLOOR, TKM MAIN ROAD, MEDANAHALLI, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA - 562 109, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ARPITHA.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI

2. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER,, Location: High Court of VIJAYA NAGAR, RAMANAGARA - 562 159, Karnataka BOTH REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN ANNEXURE-J AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO ISSUE THE PETITIONER'S FORM VIII AND IX LICENSE FOR ARMS AND AMMUNITION DEALERSHIP, DEPOSIT AND MAJOR REPAIR LICENSE AS SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER IN ANNEXURE-B.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 25.09.2024, which rejects the grant of license of the petitioner to deal with Arms and Ammunition in terms of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. Heard Sri. Praveen S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Shamanth Naik, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The landlord of the petitioner obtains sanction for construction of a building in the Gram Panchayath of Gram Panchayat, Bidadi. The building is thus constructed after the said permission being granted by the Gram Panchayat, which is now the Bidadi Municipal Corporation, nonetheless, the plan sanctioned does not get wiped out because of it becoming the Municipal Corporation.

4. The petitioner then files an application seeking license for dealership in Arms and Ammunition for deposit and major repairs. The application was not considered. The petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in W.P.No.22427/2024, which comes to be disposed on

21.08.2024, by the following order:

"2. The petitioner asserts that they have applied to respondent No.1 for the grant of a license for an Arms and Ammunition dealership in Form No.VIII and IX. The said application is required to be considered within 60 days of receiving the Police report, as stipulated under Rule 13 of the Arms Rules, 2016. The petitioner’s grievance is that, despite the prescribed time limit, the respondents have not considered their application.

3. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, upon instructions, submits that the petitioner’s application will be considered in accordance with the law if a reasonable time is granted.

4. Accordingly, it is expedient to dispose of the petition by directing respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner’s application dated 07.08.2023, as per Annexure-'B', and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

The result of the direction that is rendered in the aforesaid order by the Co-ordinate Bench is the impugned order rejecting the application of the petitioner. The rejection of the application of the petitioner is not on the strength of any violation under the Arms Act, 1959, but on the score that the building or the shop in which the petitioner is wanting to setup his business is not converted to commercial purpose and still in the agricultural stage.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would take this Court through the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench on identical circumstances to buttress his submission the entire issue stands covered by the order passed by the Dharwad Bench in W.P.No.107283/2023 dated

03.01.2024.

6. In that light, I deem it appropri