THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.9895 OF 2021

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“Issue a writ or an order or directions, especially one in the nature of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of imposing condition “The arms license is granted on sentimental grounds only and cannot be used for self/property protection, sports or any other purpose” in the License Bearing No.03/Home/2021 dated 01.02.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to strike out the impugned condition in the interest of justice ….”

2.1. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted Arms Licence No. 03/Home/2021 dated 01.02.2021 under the category of Licence to Legal Heirs. However, the licence was issued with a restrictive rider stipulating that it was granted “on sentimental grounds only and cannot be used for self/property protection, sports, or any other purpose.”

2.2. Counsel further contends that such a restriction is unsupported by any provision of the Arms Act, 1959 or the Arms Rules, 2016, and that the said condition renders the licence purposeless, effectively reducing the firearm to an ornamental possession. It is urged that, as the restriction is not sanctioned by law, it is arbitrary, ultra vires, and violative of the petitioner's statutory rights. Hence, intervention of this Court is sought.

3. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner was granted the arms licence as the legal heir of the deceased licence holder. Since there was no threat perception warranting self-defense, the licence was granted with the impugned condition restricting its use. It is contended that the said condition is consistent with the policy framework governing transfer of firearms to legal heirs. The Learned Government Pleader further submits that the appellate authority has already examined the matter and while granting licence, justified the restriction, taking into account the petitioner’s lack of threat perception. Accordingly, it is argued that the order of the appellate authority is legal and proper, and that the petition deserves dismissal.

4. Having carefully perused the record and considered the rival submissions, the core issue for determination is whether the restriction imposed by the appellate authority, limiting the licence to sentimental purposes only, is supported by law or is arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

5. It is undisputed that the original licence was issued to the petitioner’s father, without any restrictive conditions. The grant of arms licences to legal heirs is specifically governed by Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016, which reads as follows:

“25. Grant of licences to legal heirs :

(1) The licensing authority may grant a licence-

(a) after the death of the licensee, to his legal heir; or (b) in any other case, on the licensee attaining the age of seventy years or on holding the firearm for twenty-five years, whichever is earlier, to any legal heir nominated by him:

Provided that notwithstanding the provisions contained in Rule

12, the licensing authority may grant a licence to such legal heir if the eligibility conditions under the Act and these rules are fulfilled by the said legal heir and there are no adverse remarks in the police report.

(2) Where a licensee leaves behind more than one legal heir and the legal heirs decide among themselves to retain the arm or arms of the deceased, one of them nominated by all others may apply for a licence... along with (i) a declaration of no-objection from the remaining legal heirs; (ii) an indemnity bond; and (iii) a copy of the death certificate.”

6. A plain reading of the above provision demonstrates that subject to fulfillment of eligibility criteria, and in the absence of adverse remarks in the police verification, the licensing authority