Dismissed

State of Raj. and Anr. v. Mohommad Firoj

Rajasthan HC11 Mar 2015SAW/1769/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This special appeal by the State against the High Court's single judge order setting aside a rejection of an arms licence application. The single judge held the licensing authority's objection was vague and conjectural. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the single judge's decision to quash the rejection order.

What did the court decide?

Special appeal dismissed without costs; impugned order of the Single Judge upholding respondent's application stands.

State of Raj. and Anr. Vs Mohommad Firoj — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

The State of Raj. vs . Mohammad Firoj & anr.

¶5

D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1769/2014 under Section 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance Act, 1949 against the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3454/2014.

¶6

Date of Judgment : 11.3.2015.

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

¶9

HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR.

¶10

Mr. O.P. Boob,Government Counsel, for the appellants. BY THE COURT:(Per Hon'ble Ms.Jaishree Thakur)

¶11

The present appeal has been preferred under Section 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules challenging the judgment passed by learned Single Judge on 16.10.2014.

¶12

The respondent filed a writ petition for quashing the order dated 3.4.2014 passed by the District Magistrate cum Collector, Rajsamand, whereby his prayer for grant of arms licence was declined. The respondent contended that he applied for issuance of arms licence from the competent authority under Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959') alleging that he has a threat perception to his life from some anti-social elements. The application submitted was processed and requisite information was sought about the antecedents of the respondent from Superintendent of

¶13

¶14

Police,Rajsamand, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Rajsamand, who had no objection to the issuance of a liscence. The Superintendent of Police Rajsamand in his report submitted that the respondent, bears good moral character. In the same report, it was mentioned that in the past, the respondent was involved in two cross F.I.R Nos. 527/1999 and 528/1999 under Sections 323 and 324 Indian Penal Code. In the said report it was also clarified that the matter was eventually compromised. However the Additional Superintendent of Police (CID), Special Branch, Udaipur, raised an objection against grant of arms licence to the respondent by alleging that there is mutual hatred between rival families mentioned in FIR No. 528/1999 which is not conducive for grant of arms licence to the respondent. Based on this, the respondent no 2, the District Magistrate cum Collector, rejected the application of the respondent on 3.4.2014 . This order was challenged in the High Court by way of writ petition. Written statement was filed and the plea taken therein was that issuance of arms licence to the repondent is not congenial for maintaining law and order in the vicinity.

¶15

The learned Single Judge perused the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police, (C.I.D.), Special Branch Zone, Udaipur declining the prayer of the respondent, came to the conclusion that the report is very vague, cryptic and unspecific and the apprehension as projected in the report,

¶16

¶17

that issuance of arms licence may result in untoward incident due to acrimony between the two families is unfounded and based on conjecture. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 3.4.2014 and directed the authorities concerned to re-consider the application of the respondent. The present appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶18

We have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the case and find that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶19

The respondent had applied for arms licence under Section 13 of the Act of 1959 enclosing with it all the required documents and formalities. The respondent was given a clean chit by the Superintendent of Police Rajsamand wherein it was reported that the respondent had good character and had no criminal record pending against him. It was also mentioned that at one time cross FIR Nos. 527/1999 and 528/1999 were registered under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, which were eventually compromised and proceedings dropped. The Tehsildar, District Rajsamand on a basis of the report of the Patwari also asserted that arms licence could be issued. Even the Deputy Forest Conservator Officer informed the Licensing Authority that the respondent had no adverse record under any Forest Act. What is required to be noted

¶20

¶21

is that the Superintendent of Police Rajsamand had already given a report stating that the respondent bore good moral character while being aware that in cross cases under Sections 323 and 324 Indian Penal Code, the matter had been compromised and settled between the parties. The Additional Superintendent of Police(C.I.D.), Special Branch, Udaipur vide letter dated 18.2.2014 raised an objection based on an apprehension that there could be acrimony between the two families in an FIR no 528/of 1999. A perusal of the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police does not reveal any reasoning nor does the report note that the matter under FIR No 528 of 1999 had been compromised as far back as on 15.5.2001. The learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the impugned order dated 3.4.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Rajsamand declining to grant licence to respondent-respondent while directing the respondent-authorities to re-consider the application of the respondent objectively and pass order in accordance with law. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and thus, it warrants no interference in the present appeal.

¶22

The appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed, without any costs.

¶23

(JAISHREE THAKUR),J (GOVIND MATHUR),J.

¶24

mlt

State of Raj. and Anr. v. Mohommad Firoj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj. and Anr. v. Mohommad Firoj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Makawana and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs R.C. Agarwal and Anr.

Dharmendra Jala Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Madhvi Bhatnagar Vs Naresh Kumar Thakral and Anr.

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Smt. Usha Mehta and Ors.

Dental Council of India, Vs Sarawgi Charitable Trust, Sgnr.,and Anr.