Allowed

Patram Singh v. Divisional Commiss Jaipur Anr.

Rajasthan HC26 Sept 2016CW/3414/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the denial of arms licence renewal. The High Court held that the authorities failed to record reasoned findings on factual materials regarding the petitioner's conduct. The impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded to the District Magistrate for reconsideration with a reasonable time frame.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 31/8/2009 and 20/12/2011 quashed. Petitioner directed to consider renewal within four weeks.

Patram Singh Vs Divisional Commiss Jaipur… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶2

ORDER

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3414/2012

¶4

Patram Singh S/q ate~~hriiG%r$.asinh by caste Jaat
E! A$
aged about ,$8'iyka,[& ;?e?de%t" ofr,\l,illig,e Eteda, Tehsil
Laxmanga.rh, , >. hs:frirt Alwar, ajasthan! 4f ,psj
.:
%* : " f
.I, ..... PETITIONER/ARPICANT .& $,
.e- atq. i" ,&
. J
pzh <". .<
\r VERSUS ...' i
< "V I
,"% ;,
" - "&.
1. "Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur i
2. State of Rajasthan through District Collector, Alwar.
,$f%~yb"
ie .13.-
. i. 7, .L
..... RESPONDENT
s4q3bea p :;?:, g;hxs 4~
+ 4 g,a_.w;;,s %" 4. -q-&,Y ,"&,~ f ?&* --p..+&Ff
Date of Order : :3<2@;.092.6 a, =,Q"~
:'&xX:., $a, *w'+ "&I" r,r ,+**% *. & """1
.,"3b #??. <:J.uah~s ,, , ,xai ,.6"a',:.. "-;-:#F s: i I!, +ps #$$$
- i a# dc :p:,R$E(seE$Nf12'4 "2%
" :. % . '>A;::t c-2~ ,33 :,p L7.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE?'VEERENDR.SPNGH SIRADHAM
.
6.
n + ,h :+ a. ., .,,, ,$+#**??,!. $#; &&';; : ;r.;";;g>+q .,i<a % + $ $$7/
Mr. G.S. Rathore, ?d5fheKpentsoner.~~-f, .+ 6G.r &we, a /(Rw: '.
+ BC,i-4
Mr. Dharmendra Par;eekv#A.l'$&Gouk. '-z~;~ c- +a$ PP,. ;pf:"v Counsel, for the
State- respondents. ?"i: 1% at+%p++ 0
i-&" fz
$$**it in
4 r
L I r.
"" "" '! i
r ? .. I. 5 ,.i a tr $
: ;r '$ &'- I
BY THE COURT:- * .. ;t: -z nrl
<br>"t'" kt;.
cc.-'& k' A,$: I?. I pi? j&& $a<
Aggrieved of the &:s ~FY~~~~+~~~~v+~~,, ordedated~'~~lffiugust, 2009, made
a< +& s4, ,, ~ia.<x-+..3, -.,?yi
3% ,,.a"<: I ,.\Y& : * qt%Fg
by the District Collecto,~ and:Mag~strate,.#l;var, t.. and confirmed
9' -
bit. " a . -...?";- .,. fg- ," p ":j
l,+.#.A, ,-$,,,.<,,,
by the Divisional Qpm,,ssi'one~ # ~-:.L&~~.:.- ~gpuf;,tiie . order dated 20th
?::.;s;; i.*'-)-.-- % ...,. ,-,-d#
.r+~~&b,"k *&&ia- -..
>.I,; c"r@#= =,'w.TsaT m-
December, 2011; the pett'onerh'asinstltuted the present writ
"F".IYX .XI-,WW__ . . 4-t
application, with a: ipcayer.,to q.uask :.and set aside the
9.y 'I. "f r *"$ "d ",; ":'" :
impugned orders aforesaid. He has further prayed for a
direction to the authority concerned to renew the Arms
licence of the petitioner issued for 12 BOR DBBL Gun No.

¶5

Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts are that the petitioner was issued the Arms Licence No.72/Laxmangarh/OZ on 8" March, 2002, by the District Magistrate, Alwar, for .12 BOR DBBL Gun No. case of the petitioner that the Arms to time with its validity

¶6

'Un, ' '.# 8 & rei~&ating the pleaded facts and grounds of the4;-.$(it . +-* .a,-- " apzlication vehemently argued that an application,*for

¶7

which was dis 1998, in view of at between the

¶8

recommended ence in view of r,.xm r* b 7g.a- 5 t i-l-'i. .., . ,. ..t '* R -' ',""+ the crime No. 252&F%$%3that w+.;lreg[stered .a . against the petitioner. Reference was made to Circular No. P.l(l3) Home, 912006, dated 16'~ December, 2006, contemplating satisfaction of the competent authority as to the conduct of the Arms licence holder.

¶9

According to learned counsel for the petitioner while the matter of the petitioner was considered by the District Magistrate, Alwar, practically there was no material, indicating as tothq conduct of the petitioner, .* p -;+ Q.,. s'.".is J !: r .2 *-,.." & E $,, '--%\ A k A',$$ pj/ 1s 8- which could :fiav"en ., adverse effect-sos as to arrive at a - "g4jP.\ .r,s;> .isa",, satisfactip.nYor declining the renewal of Arms- Ikcence. 4 t' -.'. ; &P). i:pj? is further urged that the District a$is$ate, .* "b ..'j*; hlb&-, *v without an application of mind and ignoring .:: tGe, fact that the to be not c made the im the Divisional an appeal vide impugned or the contemplatio of the Circular dated 16th De submissions, lea of a Coordinate e of Sohan Lal Vs. State of R DNJ (Raj.) 908, Shiv Kumar ", WLC (Raj.) 393 **and-.lin~~4ase~.okubash Chander Vs.** pi ,.. ; rnl4 * . 3 f - q - \J=4 - q ***.a .v** fq Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner & Anr. : 2016(2) WLC (Raj.) UC 197. A reference has also been made to the order of the Division Bench in the case of State & Ors. Vs. Sahab Ram:2011 WLC(Raj.)UC 230.

¶10

In response to the notice of the writ application, the State-respondents have filed their counter-affidavit, supporting the impugned orders in declining the renewal of Arms licence to the petition'er;. fk b". " 3 $ -# ..* .4 $>+ p%. i aPh{ ?i$" a* @$& Mr. Dha%mendra Pareek, Addl.'G".@:-;"learned counsel $# a- " *# fi-' "3 appeari$g,for the State-respondents, as$rte:8'khat the "$ '2% 3>g~ renyal' of Arms licence has been delined:.lo;"~~the \8 - r"': _P"" .if_ *P ffefifioner in view of the adverse report submitted by **%,V fhe*

¶11

etitioner and round for declining renewal of Arms lic he petitioner might have been ac the fact remains that the crimina the action of th t be termed as 01 -Y illegal or invalid. q4 . ;7 y t.: 2 - ~j I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

¶12

with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.

¶13

Duration and renewal of licence is contemplated under Section 15 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of 1959'),

¶14

which reads thus:

¶15

"15. Duration and renewal of licence.-(1) A licence undert sectien i3 &.h~llj aqless revoked * earlier, ."c contin'ue/-??. 1 2 -, !f?&e.ifor i;aa(pgri$dt of three years($!-om .tbeadate on which it IS granted;,, S, 4 r hi. b- $ s?; -- Pro?id,ed that such a licence may be grantecfor $9 .. &,shdrter period if the person by whomq4hep. r > p-$$&nce is required so desires or if the 42*,, PI ,licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in 8a .%, n writing considers in any case that the licence Y.b 49 i ' should be granted for a shorter period. ?P

¶16

otherwise dec originally grant

¶17

Ices is which

¶18

reads thus:

¶19

vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted) e2"6ep.t such ""I *?'.ma .me" 8 ih;wa *. gjBU ---. a % & k. **-pre f 6 them as have been prescribed and jmay. "or that purpose require the licence-holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may specified in the notice.

¶20

(2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence except such of them as have been prescribed.

¶21

(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence,--

¶22

(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any* ot~~qlah f$r,?hCi time being in -'# P,& I .. force, .. G froin? ',& '* acquit%g,f - ,h.ahng. $In his possesslqn 5 or carrying any"-"arms .r -8- . or 4 . #?-" -,. ammunitiijn, or is of unsound mind, or IS fo$, a$y:.rLeason unfit for a licence under this'hc5 3 % r 01 i + riT -5, ". 1 r" >"i. (b) if the licensing authority deems it 7 necessary for the security of the public peace i 2% 9- or for public safety to suspend or revoke the

¶23

(b) if the licensing authority deems it r" 7 g necessary for the security of the public peace '*+ or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or

¶24

thereof.

¶25

statement of the same unless in any case the .".-:i-.qxill.,.^."+* -. ...-~,..l-..urC*. licensing authoatys F-3 s zZz, -e-f offthe %-a o.nsonfhat a . . li;" r.'a it will not be in thexpubllc ~nterest-*to furnish such statement.

¶26

(6) The authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate may by order in writing suspend or revoke a licence on any ground on which it may be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority; and the foregoing provisions of this section shall, as

¶27

far as may be, apply in relation to the suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority.

¶28

(7) A court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or z ..revoke th4 ,,icpc,+j~~yded/that if the conviction. ds:, !set asde 2 cn -appeal or b ,.;. 4 otheqi'se, thesuspension or rekfcaton shall $3 . " nl F' '*.; becktevod. 1 V""" " f-1 *: &o ; 68j$An order of suspension or revocation- / , --u8der sub-section (7) may also be made by \ _3-w *LJi"d an appellate court or by the High Court when x+v~c) - E:- 6 exercising its powers of revision. C L,

¶29

x+v~c) C -9 b

¶30

(9) The Central Government may, by order in

¶31

e or varying the

¶32

an appeal under

¶33

?. - Uttar Pradesh a~d;$rs??RIR ~986y;A'll'ahabad 142, it was -..<I, *j.is $ 'i 4 ;re: - t~ **Y*c;,g '8* % observed that in case licensing authority was satisfied that the possession of arms by the licencee is going to disturb or endanger of 'public peace and society', it can straightaway and without further enquiry, may make an

¶34

order of revocation/suspension of such a licence. But if the danger is not 'apparently immediate' and the licensing authority proceeds for further enquiry into the full facts, then it cannot be 'done unless and until, the 4". "8 &'-* -" .. ^ i bs; ..* \ " I ,jt licensing , r~ awtQotyty * IS completelp-* zaiati'sf~ed with its 4. 4 f _f_ ". $$ enquiryk%.,* ~-4% y td$ &". *iy b ~ybivision Bench of this Court in the case &IChern 4, 8'- **;. p /T? , " Slng"h ..b Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors:2005 (2) ~rir$i&l

¶35

Law Reporter (Raj.) 907, while explaining the scope of

¶36

any finding tj7a~~a&~~a;i01;1~~~~~pecessary for public peace{ofpu~lic-5,fe&,uh an order is a liable to be quashed."'

¶37

A Coordinate Bench of this Court decided

¶38

accordingly, in the case of Shiv Kumar (supra), with a direction to the licensing authority to reconsider the case of

¶39

the applicant (Shiv Kumar), for renewal of the Arms licence afresh.

¶40

In the case of Sohan Lal (supra), another Coordinate opinion of the Division with the action of *k%sx.. e 31/1"984 of the applicant (Sohan lal). q-7

¶41

9 In the case of Subhash Chander (Supra), another.'Co"

¶42

dhpur, relying nterfere in the case that was ignored while

¶43

hand, it is not in dispute that the Crim istered against the petitioner for offence and 341 IPC, was adjudicated upon b y the jurisdictional Court on 31" Oct dispute the Arms licence of the pe ime to time since Magistrate, Alwar, '3% s#" C- .?" " "C"-.m -",r.>a,ri..*, declined renewal ofJth$>A~ins p7a%$ +%+t llcnece , $-.-t# onkydon the basis of the *. 4 4 Jt. qij recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, Alwar, without consideration of the factual matrix and recording any finding on the basis of some materials, which would indicate as to the conduct of the petitioner that could

¶44

be perceived as a threat to 'peace and safety' of the society. The impugned order dated 3lSt August, 2009, was made in a mechanical manner so also the order of an appeal by the Divisional Commissioner dated 20th December, 2011, declining " 'n, il" 2 P %,.is :r, z ! .." .- the appeal of the:b+et~t!on_er. 4 %. r " ' +- " ~ ' ," 9 +"f ^i ". =" 8 ,#",, For fihei, Feasons and discussions afore$aid,&the writ V?%'W 4 . '< app1icatlo.n succeeds and is hereby allowed. "t

¶45

v%e:a- S'J ,& result, the impugned orders dated$L,29~~ p.. j'^Inthe S J3 .d f ;'A$ &tember, 2009 and 20th December, 2011, are hereby quashed and set aside. r S#v;l a ,'k A 6 fS34 . <. The District Magl$rate: Alwar+ls. d~rected to reconsider ##Phb, ., 7:3b$fbiyb-> e& , .:.... ::4W.:j li#?>lf.,,z-? ,%a,, -8ra 5- !P&,,,"* the matter of **te9pe$jt;$e&ff,r:+ene.ia2~,oArms** licence, in - & :.2 .& sm. -,.ha , & <Ad*' ,., **qv>.7.* +-* ?\ "'-2 F -7 .7 ,.sYj:&k!"l." - .a* - y " q, , *^,x.,"VS ,a** .,^.:?la accordance with Iadf~aezped W. a' J,. t100qy ..- 4 ,as dx$ .possible, .-" preferably, c2;;$@&J~.:+krrs _',"-A_ -i g,~;;!.!, *, within four weeks fr0m&ghe2date<a4Certified copy of this order d#&x%w& rcsn;'+,.tF& is presented.

¶46

No costs.

¶47

SIRADHANA),

¶48

Ashu /Jr.P.A./37

Patram Singh v. Divisional Commiss Jaipur Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patram Singh v. Divisional Commiss Jaipur Anr.

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

Hanuman Singh andORS Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Mrs Kamlesh Rani Vs State Education Departmentors

Prem Devi and Others Vs Ganesh Ram Prasad and Others

Lalit Ramawat Vs Madhu Ram and Others

Mani Ram Vs Ram Niwas andANR

Abdul Gaffar Vs Naimuddin Qureshi