Partly allowed

Jarnail Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Nov 2021CW/15020/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench consolidated multiple writ petitions challenging refusal, rejection, or renewal of firearm licenses. The court directed authorities to consider fresh representations afresh and pass speaking orders in accordance with relevant case law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider fresh representations from petitioners within 15 days and pass speaking orders after afresh consideration; all pending applications disposed of.

Jarnail Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4452/2019

¶3

Goverdhan Singh Parihar S/o Bharat Singh Parihar, Aged About 40 Years, Date Of Birth- 01.11.1978, Caste- Rajput, R/o Near Narsigh Sagar Talab, Sarvodya Basti, Bikaner (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs (Govt. Of Rajasthan) Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The District Collector, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Rajasthan).

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police, District - Bikaner (Rajasthan).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7337/2014

Pat Ram

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj. And Ors.

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5953/2016

¶18

Kewal Ram Versus State And Anr S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8881/2016

¶19

----Petitioner ----Respondent

Kanti Lal

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15020/2018

¶26

Jarnail Singh S/o Labh Singh, Aged About 68 Years, B/c Jat Sikh R/o 2-G-5, Sadbhawna Nagar, Sriganganagar.

¶27

----Petitioner

¶28

Versus

¶29

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶30

(2 of 8)

¶31

[CW-4452/2019]

¶32

Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner.

¶33

Collector And District Magistrate, Sriganganagar.

¶34

----Respondents

¶35

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3372/2019

¶36

Brij Lal S/o Shri Chetram, Aged About 51 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Jakhdawali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.

¶37

----Petitioner

¶38

Versus

¶39

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶40

The Divisional Commissioner, Division Bikaner.

¶41

The District Collector - Cum - District Magistrate, Hanumangarh.

¶42

----Respondents

¶43

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4244/2019

¶44

Sher Khan S/o Kayamdin, Aged About 58 Years, Village Jawandh Juni, P.s. Lathi, District - Jaisalmer.

¶45

----Petitioner

¶46

Versus

¶47

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶48

District Magistrat, Jailsamer, Rajasthan.

¶49

Collector, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

¶50

Additional District Magistrate, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

¶51

----Respondents

¶52

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4268/2019

¶53

Shri Shahviriyam S/o Shri Kasam Ali, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Chak 03 K.s.p. Police Station Tibbi Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶54

----Petitioner

¶55

Versus

¶56

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶57

District Collector And District Magistrate, Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶58

Superintending Of Police, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶59

Station House Officer, Police Station, Tibbi Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶60

----Respondents

¶61

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18380/2019

Ranjeet Kumar

(3 of 8)

[CW-4452/2019]

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Raj. And Ors.

¶68

----Respondent

¶69

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13587/2018 Aarif Mohammed Silawat

¶70

----Petitioner

¶71

Versus

¶72

State Of Raj. And Ors.

¶73

----Respondent

¶74

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajak Khan Haider Mr. S.D. Goswami Mr. Pankaj Kumar Bohra Mr. Lokesh Mathur Dr. RDSS Kharlia Mr. Shardul Singh Mr. Mohammed Iqbal Mr. Vijay Jain Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore Ms. Varsha Bissa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramdayal Choudhary, Dy.GC. Mr. Harshit Bhurarni

¶75

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶76

Order

¶77

10/11/2021

¶78

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

¶79

The present petitioners have a common grievance regarding the arms license.

¶80

Learned counsels for the present petitioners have laid the grievances with regard to matters relating to licenses of firearms

¶81

(4 of 8)

¶82

[CW-4452/2019]

¶83

under the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter “the Act of 1959”), before the Court, viz. inaction and unjustified delay in issuance of arms license / no opportunity of hearing given and despite pendency of only one criminal case / rejected without cause or speaking order / renewal denied despite acquittal in criminal cases / renewal denied despite pending criminal case related to gambling and thereby not impacting public safety / no transfer to legal heir despite surrender of old license / no grant or refusal of application for license and inordinate delay, despite prescribed statutory time period of 60 days asunder Schedule V, of the Arms Rules, 2016 (“the 2016 Rules”).

¶84

Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that there is a statutory provision for persons to apply and acquire a firearm license, and thus, the respondents ought to maintain maximum transparency, while passing the orders, whereas the impugned orders have been passed without making any individual consideration of the relevant criteria.

¶85

Learned counsel for the respondents submit that there is no absolute right of any person to acquire an arms license and the respondents have every right to objectively decide each case, while taking into consideration the past record of the person seeking such license as well as the pendency of proceedings, if any.

¶86

Learned counsels for the petitioners at this stage, submit that it would be sufficient if the respondents are directed to pass fresh orders on the petitioners’ cases individually, while keeping in the view the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Khem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶87

(5 of 8)

¶88

[CW-4452/2019]

¶89

reported in 2005 (2) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 907. This Court’s attention is drawn to Para 5 of Khem Singh (supra) –

¶90

“Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the license holder is not sufficient for cancelling the license. A license can be revoked u/s.17 (3) if the licensing authority deem it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. In absence of any finding that cancellation was necessary for public peace or public safety, such an order is liable to be quashed.”

¶91

Learned counsels for the petitioners also drew the attention of this Court towards two orders passed in Sarjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. SB Civil WP No. 110/2011 and Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. SB Civil WP No. 5681/2005 this Court passed in 2014, and 2016 respectively. In Sarjeet Singh (supra) , the Court observed the following –

¶92

“There remains no quarrel in the legal position that pendency of a criminal case cannot be cited as a ground for cancellation / suspension of Arms License under Section 17 of the Arms Act 1959 (for short ‘the Act of 1959’). The Division Bench of this Court in Khem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. has held that pendency of criminal case against an incumbent is not a ground of cancellation of Arms License under Section 17(3) (B) of the Act of 1959. The Court has further held that in absence of any finding that cancellation was necessary for public safety such order cannot be sustained.”

¶93

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

¶94

(6 of 8)

¶95

[CW-4452/2019]

¶96

Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 reads as under:

¶97

17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.—

¶98

(1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject to which a licence has been granted except such of them as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require the licence-holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice.

¶99

(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.

¶100

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

¶101

(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or

¶102

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or

¶103

(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or

¶104

(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or

¶105

(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.

¶106

(4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof.

¶107

(5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of

¶108

(7 of 8)

¶109

[CW-4452/2019]

¶110

the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.

¶111

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

¶112

(7) A court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence: Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void.

¶113

(8) An order of suspension or revocation under sub-section (7) may also be made by an appellate court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision.

¶114

(9) The Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any licences granted under this Act throughout India or any part thereof.

¶115

(10) On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation.”

¶116

This Court is of the opinion that any interference in rejection of grant of fresh application / refusal / renewal of license for firearms is not warranted except when extraordinary circumstances are pointed out.

¶117

Looking into the submission made by learned counsel for the parties that it would be suffice if their rights are redetermined by

¶118

(8 of 8)

¶119

[CW-4452/2019]

¶120

the respondents, while keeping into consideration the judgment rendered in Khem Singh (supra) , the same is accepted.

¶121

Thus, in the given circumstances, the present petitions are disposed of, while directing that each of the petitioners shall file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days from the date of obtaining the certified copy of this order and each representation shall be considered afresh by the respective District Magistrate by passing speaking orders, while keeping in mind the relevant aforementioned judgments, the existing policy of the State, strictly in accordance with law. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶122

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶123

107-110, 112-115, 120, C-1 skant/zeeshan

Jarnail Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarnail Singh v. State of Rajasthan

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

Lrs of Shri Makhan Singh Vs the Divisional Commissioner

Kailash Vs Excide Life Insurance Company Limited

Priyanka Vs the State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Amanteeka Vs Omprakash

Goverdhan Singh Parihar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Panna Lal Vs Kamla Devi