Delhi High Court
Ravinder Hooda vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 March, 2018
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Pronounced on: 01.3.2018
+ W.P.(C) 5775/2015
RAVINDER HOODA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Swastik Singh with
Mr. Himanshu Dagar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with
Mrs. Tejaswita and mr. Abhigyan
Siddhant, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. for R-2 & 3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a writ petition which is directed against the communication
bearing No.V-11019/71/2013-ARMS, dated April 2015 addressed by
respondent no.1 to the petitioner. Relevant portion of this communication is
extracted hereunder:
"I am directed to refer to the Govt. of Haryana's letter
No.3/605/ 2013-4H.G-III dated 29.10.2013 on the subject
mentioned above.
2. The request of Shri Ravinder Hooda, S/o (L) Ramprakash
for grant of PB arms licence for possession of .38 bore revolver
on transfer under family heirloom basis has been considered
carefully in this Ministry. However, it is regretted that the
request has not been agreed to by the Competent Authority, as
it has been observed that there is no sufficient grounds for
grant of PB arms licence for possession of .38 bore revolver on
W.P.(C) No.5775/2015 Pg.1 of 5
transfer under family heirloom basis.
3. The original licence No.776/lll/R is enclosed."
4. As would be apparent upon a bare perusal of the impugned
communication, the petitioner has applied for grant of prohibited arms
licence qua .38 bore revolver, which he possesses, under Transfer/ Family
Heirloom Policy. The impugned letter does not provide any reasons
whatsoever as to why the petitioner's request for grant of licence under the
Transfer/ Family Heirloom Policy has been declined.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that he fulfils the criteria stipulated
in the policy letter dated 06.04.2010. In particular, the petitioner relies upon
Clause (iii) of the said letter which reads as follows:
"iii) Grant of Licences under family heirloom
Attention is invited to the instructions contained in MHA's letter
No.V-11019/23/95-Arms dated 28-02-1995 regarding grant of
licences to the legal heir of existing licensee, after the death of
the licensee or the licensee has attained the age of 70 years or
had held the weapon for 25 years or more. Normally, the scope
of legal heirs is extended to husband, wife, son & daughter. It
has been decided to extend the scope of legal heir ship to the
son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother and sister of the existing
licensee. Accordingly, the applications for transfer of weapons
from the said categories of relatives of the licensee may also be
considered subject to other conditions stipulated in the said
letter." (emphasis is mine)
6. A perusal of the aforesaid extract would show that what is stated
therein is tied-in with another set of instructions contained in the Ministry of
Home Affairs' letter bearing No.V-11019/23/95-Arms, dated 28-02-1995.
W.P.(C) No.5775/2015 Pg.2 of 5
7. On the previous date, this Court had directed the learned counsel for
the respondents to produce the letter dated 28.2.1995. A copy of the said
letter has been produced by Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1, today.
7.1 A bare perusal of the said letter would show that there are two
categories under which an applicant's request for issuance of a fresh license
could be considered. The first category comprises those applicants who are
legal heirs of deceased license holders, and the second category comprises
of applicants who are legal heirs of license holders who are alive.
8. Insofar as the first category is concerned, fresh license for prohibited
bore weapon could be granted to a defence personnel, who was allocated
such weapon prior to June 1982, and to legal heirs of the deceased license
holders, who would like to keep such weapon as a family heirloom, albeit,
on sentimental grounds. The second category, though, not relevant for this
case, to be noted, stipulates that in order to obtain a licence, the license
holder should have held the weapon for a long period of time, say 25 years
or more or the licensee should have attained the age of 70 years.
8.1 Besides providing for categories, letter dated 28.2.1995 also provides
for conditions under which fresh license can be granted. Out of the three
conditions stipulated, two conditions substantially apply to both categories.
These being:
"1. Weapon should be transferable to legal heirs only; and
2. The person should be eligible to get a licence and should
be capable of handling the firearm which is intended to
be transferred to him......."
W.P.(C) No.5775/2015 Pg.3 of 5
9. Clearly, nothing has been said in the impugned letter which would
have one come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to be
considered for grant of fresh licence under the Family Heirloom Policy.
There is no suggestion whatsoever in the impugned letter that the petitioner
is not eligible to get a licence or capable of handling the firearm which is
intended to be transferred to him.
10. I may indicate that the petitioner has also set up a case of
discrimination inasmuch as he has referred to two cases in which licences
have been granted in the past for prohibited bore in respect of a similar
weapon, that is, .38 revolver. First case cited is that of one, Sh. Satender
Budhawar; while the second instance referred to is of, one, Sh. Vijender
Jindal.
11. Reference with regard to Sh. Satender Budhawar is made in paragraph
9 of the petition whereas reference with regard to Sh. Vijender Jindal is
made in the rejoinder. Photocopies of the licences issued to these two
persons have been filed by the petitioner.
12. Reliance has also been placed by the petitioner on a judgment dated
26.9.2013, rendered in CWP No.8464/2011, titled Darshan Singh vs. State
of Haryana and Ors by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
13. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, I am inclined to set
aside the impugned communication bearing No.V-11019/71/2013-ARMS,
dated April 2015, addressed by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner, with a
direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant
of the prohibited bore licence under the Family Heirloom Policy.
14. The respondents will hear the petitioner before coming to a
conclusion either way. Respondents will also pass a speaking order; a copy
W.P.(C) No.5775/2015 Pg.4 of 5
of which will be served on the petitioner.
15. Needless to say, this exercise will be carried out as expeditiously as
possible, though not later than 10 weeks of the receipt of a copy of the order,
given the fact that an application for grant of fresh licence was made by the
petitioner as far back as on 28.2.2013.
16. I may also indicate that Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, learned standing
counsel for the respondent no.1, has raised an objection as to the
maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner could
have taken recourse to an alternative remedy. According to me, the
availability of an alternative remedy does not prevent this Court from
exercising jurisdiction if it is otherwise vested in it. Since the objection on
this ground was not raised in the first instance and the matter has been
pending before this Court for the past two years, I do not deem it fit to
dispose of the writ petition based on the plea raised by Mr. Anurag
Ahluwalia.
17. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed in the aforesaid
terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 01, 2018/pmc
W.P.(C) No.5775/2015 Pg.5 of 5
