Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Het Ram vs Dist. Collector And Magi. ... on 14 December, 2023
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:43687] (1 of 6) [CW-1638/2009]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1638/2009
Het Ram S/o Sh. Teja Ram, by caste Jat, aged about 52 years,
Resident of Rodawali, Tehsil Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Dist. Collector And Magistrate, Hanumangarh.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Bohra.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D.Bhadu, AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
14/12/2023
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.
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
(Downloaded on 18/12/2023 at 08:46:46 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:43687] (2 of 6) [CW-1638/2009]
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) -
"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."
(Downloaded on 18/12/2023 at 08:46:46 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:43687] (3 of 6) [CW-1638/2009]
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.--
(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.
(Downloaded on 18/12/2023 at 08:46:46 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:43687] (4 of 6) [CW-1638/2009]
(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 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 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.
(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
[2023:RJ-JD:43687] (5 of 6) [CW-1638/2009]
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
respective District Magistrate by passing speaking orders,
while keeping in mind the relevant aforementioned
judgments, the existing policy of the State, strictly in
[2023:RJ-JD:43687] (6 of 6) [CW-1638/2009]
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.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
66-AnilSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
