Authority must justify restrictions on firearm licenses according to the Arms Act.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is stated to be a planter and a member of Kottayam Rifle Association, which is affiliated to Kerala State Rifle Association. The petitioner submits that he has been a winner in several shooting competitions conducted by the rifle clubs. Ext.P1 is a certificate issued to the petitioner by the Kottayam Rifle Association certifying that the petitioner is a life member of the association. Ext.P2 is also a certificate issued by the Kottayam Rifle Association to the petitioner for obtaining

1^st price in a District Championship Rifle- Shooting competition.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner was licenced to hold four guns, as per Ext.P4 proceedings of the Additional District Magistrate, Kottayam dated 02.11.1983. The Arms licence granted was extended till 28.04.2021. In the light of the amendment to Section 3 (2) of the Arms act, 1959, the petitioner informed the District Collector that he intend to surrender one out of the four licensed guns held by him.

3. Accordingly, through Ext.P7 proceedings , the District Collector issued license for three guns valid up to 28.04.2026. However, through Exts.P8 and P11, the District Collector, in the light of the clarification order issued by the Central Government dated 13.02.2020, directed the petitioner to submit an appropriate application for removing one gun out of the three guns for which licence was granted as per Ext.P7. Pursuant to the said communication, the petitioner had surrendered one gun, which is seen from Ext.P10. The petitioner challenges the said direction contending that the Notification dated 12.02.2020 issued by the Central Government has nothing to do with Section 3 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959 and as a matter of fact, the said Notification permitted the category of persons mentioned therein to hold three guns for their training purposes.

4. The petitioner submits that Ext.P8 was issued misreading Ext.P12 Notification and that the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. The petitioner also relies on the judgment of this Court in Tony Mathew V. State of Kerala [ 2024 (3) KHC 284 ] to contend that though Section 3 (2) prohibits acquisition, possession or carrying of more than two fire arms, the licensee is a dealer in fire arms or member of a Rifle Club or Rifle Association licenced or recognised by the Central Government, the said restriction will not apply. The learned counsel for the petitioner also would argue that the operation of Rule 36 and 37 are distinct and different and the Notification actually was rendered with Rule 37 in mind.

5. The Central Government has filed a statement. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel argued on the basis of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Meet Malhotra V. Union of India [ 2022 KHC 4952 ] that a Member of an association or a club was permitted to temporarily possess more than two firearms only in case he was holding an additional weapon, which was licensed to the club or association and that it had to be used in the club.

6. The learned Government Pleader also tried to substantiate Ext.P8 order.

7. After hearing learned counsel on both sides and perusing Ext.P8 order, it is seen that apart from placing reliance on Ext.P12 Notification, no other reason has been stated.

8. None of the reasons stated by the respondents for sustaining the impugned orders, figure/considered in them. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to quash the impugned order, taking note of the fact that in the first instance, the statutory authority has to consider the request of the petitioner. There will be a direction to the 4^th respond