WRIT PETITION NO. 8751 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/ QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.02.2026 ISSUED BY THE POLICE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE CITY - RESPONDENT BEARING NO. COPBCP/ARMS(RAL)278/2025 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner who holds an arms licence is aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the respondent/authority declining to renew the arms licence on the ground that petitioner is aged 83 years and that he may secure and transfer the arms licence in favour of his legal heirs. Adverting to the age of the petitioner, the authority has rejected to renew the arms licence.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents. Perused the records.

3. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Punitbhai Becharbhai Palsana vs. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC Online Guj 4726, wherein the issue in question has been substantially considered. The Gujarat High Court, while adverting to Sections 13, 14 and 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’), has categorically held that the said provisions do not prescribe any bar with regard to the age of the holder of an arms licence.

4. In the light of the law laid down by the Gujarat High Court, this Court deems it appropriate to examine the reasons assigned by the respondent-authority while declining renewal of the petitioner’s licence. Admittedly, the sole ground on which the renewal has been refused is that the petitioner is aged about 83 years and, therefore, he may secure transfer of the licence in favour of his legal heirs. However, the records disclose that the petitioner, along with his application for renewal, has furnished a valid medical certificate issued by a competent authority certifying his fitness. The impugned endorsement neither adverts to nor considers the said medical certificate. Further, the authority has failed to examine the matter in the light of Section 14 of the Act, which enumerates the specific circumstances under which refusal of licence is permissible.

5. A plain reading of Section 14 of the Act makes it evident that age, by itself, is not a disqualifying factor nor does it constitute a ground for refusal of renewal. In the absence of any statutory prohibition or disqualification attributable to the petitioner under Section 14, the impugned action of the respondent-authority cannot be sustained in law.

6. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned endorsement runs contrary to the statutory scheme under Section 14 of the Act and is also vitiated on account of non-consideration of relevant material, namely, the medical certificate produced by the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed

(ii) The endorsement dated 26.02.2026 issued by respondent No.1 – Police Commissioner, Bangalore City, vide Annexure-A, is hereby quashed;

(iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application for renewal of arms licence afresh, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, and upon due consideration of the medical certificate furnished by the petitioner;

(iv) Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.