High Court disposed of a writ petition squarely covered by a prior judgment regarding firearms license grants. Court directed authorities to pass fresh speaking orders on individual applications within 15 days.
Petition disposed; direct authorities to pass fresh speaking orders on applications within 15 days; pending applications disposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 6)
[CW-302/2017]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 302/2017
Rohit Singhal S/o Sh. Pyare Lal, Resident Of Ward No.22 Rai Singh Nagar, Shri Ganganagar, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SK Prajapat For Respondent(s) : Mr. RD Choudhary, Dy.GC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
11/11/2021
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.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this court in Goverdhan Singh Parihar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4452/2019), decided on 10.11.2021 alongwith the connected matters. The order dated 10.11.2021 reads as follows :
The present petitioners have a common grievance regarding the arms license.
(2 of 6)
[CW-302/2017]
Learned counsels for the present petitioners have laid the grievances with regard to matters relating to licenses of firearms 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”).
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.
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.
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. reported in 2005 (2) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 907. This Court’s attention is drawn to Para 5 of Khem Singh (supra) –
(3 of 6)
[CW-302/2017]
“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.”
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–
“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.”
Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 reads as under:
17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.—
(4 of 6)
[CW-302/2017]
(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
(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
(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
(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or
(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.
(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 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.
(5 of 6)
[CW-302/2017]
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.”
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.
Looking into the submission made by learned counsel for the parties that it would be suffice if their rights are redetermined by the respondents, while keeping into consideration the judgment rendered in Khem Singh (supra) , the same is accepted.
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
(6 of 6) [CW-302/2017]
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.
In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present petition is also disposed of in the same terms. Stay petition as well as all pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
119-Sudheer/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether rejection of firearm license applications warrants interference when extraordinary circumstances are not pointed out.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Goverdhan Singh Parihar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4452/2019)Relied on¶18
Khem SinghExplained¶26
Khem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2005 (2) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 907.
Sarjeet SinghReferred¶29
Sarjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. SB Civil WP No. 110/2011
Gurdev SinghReferred¶29
Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. SB Civil WP No. 5681/2005
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rohit Singhal
State Of Rajasthan
DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
