Jharkhand High Court
Rajiv Ranjan Aged About 34 Years Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 January, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No.307 of 2023
------
Rajiv Ranjan aged about 34 years son of Ashok Kumar Yadav,
resident of House No.274, Sindhu Road, 10 No. Basti, Golmuri,
Jamshedpur, P.O. Golmuri, P.S. Sidhgora, District-East Singhbhum
(Jharkhand). ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principle Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Director General Of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project
Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, P.O.
& P.S.- Sakchi, District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
5. The District Arms Magistrate, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur,
P.O. & P.S.- Sakchi, District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
6. The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum at
Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.- Sakchi, District- East Singhbhum
(Jharkhand).
7. The Officer-in-Charge, Sidhgora Police Station, P.O. Golmuri, P.S.
Sidhgora, District-East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
... Respondents
------
For the Petitioner : Md. Jalisur Rahman, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA-III
: Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA-III
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent nos. 4 to 6 to issue Arms
license to the petitioner as he fulfills the required criteria for grant of the same.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the member of Rifle
Club, Jamshedpur but he does not have his own rifle, he needs his own rifle so
that he can train himself for the practice of shooting, therefore, he needs a Arms
license. On 14.12.2021, the petitioner applied online for grant of new Arms
license for handgun, revolver or pistol, but no action has been taken as yet nor
has any reply been given.
4. Drawing attention of the Court to Rule 13 and 14 of the Arms Rule, 2016,
it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner
has applied for license of handguns (revolver or pistol) which comes under
Category-III(a) of Schedule-1 of the Arms Rules, 2016, it was incumbent upon
the respondent no.5- being the Licensing Authority should have issued the
license as the petitioner is fulfilling the eligibility conditions, hence, it is
submitted that the prayer made in this writ petition, be allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in view of Section 13
(3)(a)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959 which reads as under;
"The Licensing Autority shall grant a license under Section 3 where
the license is required in respect of a fire arm to be used for target practice by
a member of a Rifle Club or Association licensed or recognized by the Central
Government."
the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that as the
police has not recommended for grant of license since there is no threat or risk
of life of the petitioner has been made; is not a reason for not granting the
license. It is next submitted that the threat or risk of life is not a condition
precedent for granting arms license to a member of Rifle club.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relies
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar
Mandal vs. The State of Bihar & Others in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case
No.4117 of 2020 dated 27.11.2024 wherein the Hon'ble Patna High Court has
reiterated the principle of law settled by that Court, that it is not necessary that
threat perception should be present so as to warrant grant of arms license to
the applicant, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this writ
petition, be allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that delay in disposal of the
application occurred because there is no provision or system of online
application of arms license in the district of East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. It
is next submitted that after receiving the application for arms license of the
petitioner, the respondent no.5 vide his letter No.127 dated 13.07.2022 called for
enquiry report in respect of necessity and threat perception and the same has
resulted in delay, hence, it is submitted that in the absence of any threat
perception, this writ petition being without any merit, be dismissed.
8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that in view of categorical provision in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Arms Act,
1959, this Court is of the considered view that, in case, a person is a member of
Rifle Club or Rifle Association and he request for a license to purchase a fire
arm to be used for target practice, such licence should be issued by the
Licensing Autority and in view of the time frame mandated by Rule 13 of
Arms Rules, 2016, the respondent no.5 ought to have passed the order for grant
of license or refusal of the same within 60 days, of the receipt of the police
report. In view of the mandate of law, this writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the Respondent no.5 to pass a reasoned order in respect of the
application of the petitioner dated 14.12.2021 for grant of Arms license to him
within 60 days from date of receipt or production of this order before it.
9. This W.P. (Cr.), is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 09th of January, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
