Allowed

Krishna Prasad P v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2024WP/22242/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's application for a shotgun licence was rejected without reasons. The High Court quashed the rejection endorsement as non-speaking and outside the grounds in Section 14(1) Arms Act, directing reconsideration with hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 17.07.2024 rejecting gun licence application quashed; respondent No.2 directed to reconsider the application after hearing, within three months.

Krishna Prasad P Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:48880 WP No. 22242 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 22242 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KRISHNA PRASAD P P M VENKATARAMANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 200, 9TH MAIN, AREKERE MICO LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. BHARATHI H L, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANJUNATHA G, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SOUTH END CIRCLE, GUPTA LAYOUT, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:48880 WP No. 22242 of 2024

¶18

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THE PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION, K.R.LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, BENGALURU URBAN BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K P YOGANNA, AGA)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER 17.07.2024 REJECT THE PETITIONERS ONLINE APPLICATION FOR GUN LICENCE WITHOUT ASSIGN REASONS (ANNEXURE-D).

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner asserts that he is a distinguished engineer at Vantiva, formerly known as Arris Group India Pvt. Ltd., and holds over sixty patents granted by the United States for inventions in the fields of audio, video, internet, and wireless technologies. He is apprehensive about the threat to his life from rival competitors and seeks protection for his crops and standing trees. In this regard, he submitted an application to respondent No.2 for a license to possess 12-bore shotgun shells.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:48880 WP No. 22242 of 2024

¶28

However, respondent No.2, after receiving reports from respondents No.3 and 4, rejected the application, prompting the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

The petitioner has annexed documents substantiating that the United States of America has granted him sixty patents. Additionally, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo enclosing a copy of the record of rights, which shows that agricultural lands in Sy. Nos.101/2, 101/1B1, 278/1C1B, 278/1B, and 278/2 are registered in the petitioner’s name.

¶31

The petitioner seeks a license to possess a shotgun, citing a threat to his life from rival competitors and the need to protect his agricultural crops and standing trees. However, respondents No. 3 and 4 submitted a report stating that there is no threat to the petitioner’s life and recommended against granting the license. Respondent No.2, relying on this report, rejected the application, but failed to provide reasons for the rejection.

¶32

Even otherwise, the rejection of the application does not fall within the grounds enumerated in Section 14(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, which specifies the grounds for refusal to grant a license. Consequently, the impugned endorsement

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48880 WP No. 22242 of 2024

¶34

issued by respondent No. 2 is not a speaking order and violates the principles of natural justice.

¶35

Therefore, the impugned order is legally unsustainable and requires reconsideration in accordance with the law.

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) The petition is allowed.

¶38

ii) The endorsement/order dated 17.7.2024 rejecting the application for grant of license at Annexure-D is hereby quashed.

¶39

iii) The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner after providing an opportunity of hearing.

¶40

iv) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order.

¶41

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶42

BKM

Krishna Prasad P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Prasad P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram Properties Ltd. Vs the Secretary

Sultan Salahuddin Vs Authorized Officer/Associate Vice President

Sri Ganesh Kumar Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Suryaprakash M N Vs the State of Karnataka

Cheeranahalli Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka