THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.21576 OF 2022

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: “To issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents herein in canceling the license of the petitioner vide No.C1/2138/2015-M, dated 28.11.2015, herein as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to renew the license……….”

2.1 Mr. V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been an arms- license holder since 2009. A renewal application was submitted on 20.08.2015; however, the Collector and District Magistrate, by proceedings dated 28.11.2015, declined to renew the license on the grounds of the petitioner’s age, alleged ill-health, and an adverse report from the Inspector of Police, P.S. Armoor stating that no threat to the petitioner existed. Contending that the impugned order is without any tenable basis, arbitrary, and unsupported by law, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to renew the license.

2.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argues that the authority has invoked Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 for refusing renewal. However, neither advanced age nor general health concerns are statutorily recognized grounds under Section 17(3) for revocation or refusal of renewal. It is submitted that such considerations must have demonstrable and substantive nexus with public safety or misuse of arms, which is conspicuously absent in the present case.

3.1. Conversely, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that respondent No. 2 has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner, aged about 69 years and allegedly suffering from health problems, is incapable of safely handling a weapon. Further, the Inspector of Police reported that the petitioner does not face any threats, and hence renewal was rightly refused.

3.2. He also points out that a show-cause notice dated 19.10.2015 had been issued, to which the petitioner responded on 16.11.2015. Therefore, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing, and a reasoned decision was thereafter passed. Accordingly, the impugned order, being justified and based on available material, does not warrant interference.

4. I have carefully perused the record.

5. It is undisputed that respondent No. 2 revoked the petitioner’s arms license citing advanced age, ill-health, and the Inspector of Police’s report that the petitioner does not face any threat. The Inspector’s report merely states that the petitioner is elderly, has unspecified health problems, and may be unable to carry or operate the weapon. However, the report does not furnish particulars or medical assessment regarding the petitioner’s physical condition. Similarly, the conclusion that the petitioner faces no threat is stated without supporting material, parameters, or inquiry details.

6. A show-cause notice dated 19.10.2015, issued on nearly identical grounds, was answered by the petitioner on 16.11.2015, wherein he categorically stated that he suffers from no health issues, is capable of handling a weapon, and is willing to undergo a medical examination. He also asserted that he had received threatening calls from Naxalites and continued to face danger.

Despite these representations, the impugned order merely reiterates the earlier grounds without independent analysis, corroboration, or application of mind. The Licensing Authority has simply reproduced the Inspector’s report without exercising its own statutory discretion.

7. The primary grounds relied upon age and ill-health are not per se grounds under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 for revocation or refusal of renewal. Any refusal must satisfy the statutory test: that continuance of the license is “against public peace or public sa