Disposed¶34

Rajiv Ranjan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Jan 2025W.P.(Cr.)/307/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, W.P. (Cr.) No.307 of 2023, decided 09.01.2025, Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Arms licence; Rifle Club member; firearm for target practice; Section 13(3)(a)(ii) Arms Act 1959; Rule 13 Arms Rules 2016; 60-day timeline from police report; threat perception not insisted by petitioner; Category-III(a) Schedule-1 Arms Rules; District Arms Magistrate East Singhbhum; Ranjan Kumar Mandal v. State of Bihar (Patna HC) referred; Article 226 writ; disposed with direction for reasoned order within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.5 (District Arms Magistrate, East Singhbhum / Licensing Authority) to pass a reasoned order on the petitioner's application dated 14.12.2021 for grant of Arms licence within 60 days from the date of receipt or production of the order before it. ¶34

Rajiv Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents (nos. 4 to 6) should be directed to issue an Arms licence to the petitioner, a member of Rifle Club, Jamshedpur, whose application dated 14.12.2021 remained undecided. +2 more

¶19

Court's answer

In view of the mandate of law, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.5 to pass a reasoned order on the petitioner's application dated 14.12.2021 for grant of Arms licence within 60 days from the date of receipt or production of the order before it.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

In view of the categorical provision in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959, where a person is a member of a Rifle Club or Rifle Association and requests a licence to purchase a firearm to be used for target practice, such licence should be issued by the Licensing Authority.

¶30

Key takeaways

Per the time frame mandated by Rule 13 of the Arms Rules, 2016, respondent no.5 (Licensing Authority) ought to have passed an order of grant or refusal within 60 days of receipt of the police report.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arms licence — Member of Rifle Club, Jamshedpur sought direction for grant of Arms licence (handgun/revolver/pistol); online application dated 14.12.2021 undecided. HELD: in view of the categorical provision in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959, where a member of a Rifle Club/Rifle Association requests a firearm licence for target practice, such licence should be issued by the Licensing Authority; and per the time frame mandated by Rule 13 of the Arms Rules, 2016, respondent no.5 ought to have passed an order of grant or refusal within 60 days of receipt of the police report. Petitioner contended (relying on Ranjan Kumar Mandal, Patna HC, CWJC No.4117 of 2020) that threat perception is not a condition precedent. Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent no.5 to pass a reasoned order on the application dated 14.12.2021 within 60 days of receipt/production of the order. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.; 09.01.2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No.307 of 2023

¶2

------

¶3

Rajiv Ranjan aged about 34 years son of Ashok Kumar Yadav, resident of House No.274, Sindhu Road, 10 No. Basti, Golmuri, Jamshedpur, P.O. Golmuri, P.S. Sidhgora, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

The Principle Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.Dhurwa, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶7

The Director General Of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.- Sakchi, District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).

¶9

The District Arms Magistrate, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.- Sakchi, District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).

¶10

The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.- Sakchi, District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).

¶11

The Officer-in-Charge, Sidhgora Police Station, P.O. Golmuri, P.S. Sidhgora, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

For the Petitioner : Md. Jalisur Rahman, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III : Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA-III ------

¶14

P R E S E N T

¶15

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶16

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶17

¶18

W.P. (Cr.) No.307 of 2023

¶19

This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent nos. 4 to 6 to issue Arms license to the petitioner as he fulfills the required criteria for grant of the same.

¶20

The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the member of Rifle Club, Jamshedpur but he does not have his own rifle, he needs his own rifle so that he can train himself for the practice of shooting, therefore, he needs a Arms license. On 14.12.2021, the petitioner applied online for grant of new Arms license for handgun, revolver or pistol, but no action has been taken as yet nor has any reply been given.

¶21

Drawing attention of the Court to Rule 13 and 14 of the Arms Rule, 2016, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has applied for license of handguns (revolver or pistol) which comes under Category-III(a) of Schedule-1 of the Arms Rules, 2016, it was incumbent upon the respondent no.5- being the Licensing Authority should have issued the license as the petitioner is fulfilling the eligibility conditions, hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this writ petition, be allowed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in view of Section 13 (3)(a)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959 which reads as under;

¶23

“The Licensing Autority shall grant a license under Section 3 where the license is required in respect of a fire arm to be used for target practice by a member of a Rifle Club or Association licensed or recognized by the Central Government.”

¶24

the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that as the police has not recommended for grant of license since there is no threat or risk of life of the petitioner has been made; is not a reason for not granting the

¶25

¶26

W.P. (Cr.) No.307 of 2023

¶27

license. It is next submitted that the threat or risk of life is not a condition precedent for granting arms license to a member of Rifle club.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar Mandal vs. The State of Bihar & Others in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4117 of 2020 dated 27.11.2024 wherein the Hon’ble Patna High Court has reiterated the principle of law settled by that Court, that it is not necessary that threat perception should be present so as to warrant grant of arms license to the applicant, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this writ petition, be allowed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondents submit that delay in disposal of the application occurred because there is no provision or system of online application of arms license in the district of East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. It is next submitted that after receiving the application for arms license of the petitioner, the respondent no.5 vide his letter No.127 dated 13.07.2022 called for enquiry report in respect of necessity and threat perception and the same has resulted in delay, hence, it is submitted that in the absence of any threat perception, this writ petition being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶30

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in view of categorical provision in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959, this Court is of the considered view that, in case, a person is a member of Rifle Club or Rifle Association and he request for a license to purchase a fire arm to be used for target practice, such licence should be issued by the Licensing Autority and in view of the time frame mandated by Rule 13 of

¶31

¶32

W.P. (Cr.) No.307 of 2023

¶33

Arms Rules, 2016, the respondent no.5 ought to have passed the order for grant of license or refusal of the same within 60 days, of the receipt of the police report. In view of the mandate of law, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent no.5 to pass a reasoned order in respect of the application of the petitioner dated 14.12.2021 for grant of Arms license to him within 60 days from date of receipt or production of this order before it.

¶34

This W.P. (Cr.), is disposed of accordingly.

¶35

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶36

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 09^th of January, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj

¶37

¶38

W.P. (Cr.) No.307 of 2023

Rajiv Ranjan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Ranjan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rehan Ansari Alias Md. Husnain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sundar Lal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikash Agarwal Alias Vikash Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Daud Jahangir Vs State of Jharkhand

Binay Kumar Sinku Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Verma Alias Rohit Kumar Berma Vs the State of Jharkhand