Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tanveer Warsi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 September, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26835
1 WP-39425-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 39425 of 2024
TANVEER WARSI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghav Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.06.2021 (Annexure P-
3) passed by the District Magistrate, respondent No. 4 as affirmed by order
dated 29.10.2024, (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Bhopal
Division, Bhopal whereby his arms license has been cancelled in exercise of
power under Section 17 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. As per the petitioner, he holds arms license bearing No.
17/D.M.R./B/2011 which was issued to him in the year 2011 and which was
renewed from time to time. FIR was registered against the petitioner vide
Crime No. 260/2021, at police station Kotwali, District Rajgarh for offences
punishable under Sections 177, 186, 269, 188, 304(2), 336, 369, 417, 34,
120-B of the IPC and certain other enactments on the basis of which a show
cause notice was issued to him to the effect as to why his arms license be not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26835
2 WP-39425-2024
cancelled. The petitioner filed his reply to the same after which his arms
license was cancelled by merely observing that the reply filed by him is not
legal. The said order has been maintained in appeal by the Commissioner by
order dated 29.10.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cancellation of arms
license of the petitioner only on the ground of registration of criminal case
against him is illegal. The cancellation could not have been done on grounds
beyond Sections 14, 15 and 17 of the Arms Act. Mere registration of a
criminal case against the petitioner cannot be a ground for cancellation of his
lecense particularly when there is no allegation that in the said crime the arm
concerned was used.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has supported the
impugned order and has submitted that it is the discretion of the licensing
Authority whether to cancel the license or not and such a discretion should
not be interfered with by the writ Court. He relied upon the judgment of this
Court in Raj Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2009
(2) MPLJ 291 in which it was held that various cases registered under the
Indian Penal Code and also the Arms Act are sufficient indicator that the
security to public peace and public safety is at peril. He also relied upon the
judgment of Jahangir Khan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2010 3
MPLJ 488 in which it is held that if any five conditions as one enumeration
under Section 17 (3) of the Act, 1959 are fulfilled then arms license can be
cancelled. In the present case, not one but three criminal cases have been
registered against the petitioner. Besides the case mentioned in the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26835
3 WP-39425-2024
order, two other cases have also been registered against the petitioner vide
Crime No 344/2021 and 404/2021 at police station Rajgarh, District Rajgarh
for offences punishable under Sections 177, 420, 464, 465, 468, 471, 120-B
of IPC and Sections 12, 13, 14, 15 of Press and Registration of Books Act,
1867. It is hence submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
and have perused the record.
06. Section 17 of the Arms Act of 1959 provides that :-
"17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.--
(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 deliverup the licence
to it within such time as may be specified in the notice.
(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.
(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such
period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence--
(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.
(4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26835
4 WP-39425-2024
holder thereof.
(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 therefore 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."
07. On perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that the licence
has been cancelled on the ground of pendency of criminal case against the
petitioner. The crux of the matter is that whether the petitioner has a right to
possess the fire arm. The scheme of the Act discloses that grant of arms
license is a privilege extended by the State to the petitioner concerned. In the
impugned order, the licensing authority has not recorded any satisfaction for
cancelling the license in terms of Section 17(3)(b) of the Act. Merely due to
registration of the case, the license cannot be cancelled. Nothing is on record
to show that public safety or public tranquility is going to be affected
because of the petitioner.
08. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the inescapable conclusion is
that the licensing authority did not exercise the power in accordance with
Section 17(3) (b) of the Act. The power exercised by the authority is without
application of mind, arbitrary and without recording subjective satisfaction.
09. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The
impugned orders dated 10.06.2021 (Annexure P-3) 29.10.2024 (Annexure
P-5) are hereby set aside. The licensing authority is directed to reconsider the
case of the petitioner for cancellation of arms license in accordance with the
provisions of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26835
5 WP-39425-2024
pass a reasoned and speaking order. The petitioner is directed to appear
before the licensing authority alognwith certified copy of this order on
06.10.2025.
10. With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition stands
allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
VD
