Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Yagyajeet Singh Chauhan vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:39660) on 24 September, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:39660]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1237/2024
Yagyajeet Singh Chauhan D/o Shri Manjeet Pal Singh Chauhan,
Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 16, Dayanand Colony,
Ladnu, District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector-Cum-Magistrate, District Nagaur.
3. The District Collector-Cum-Magistrate, Deedwana, District
Deedwana And Kuchaman.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Ladrecha, AAG assisted by Mr.
Deepak Suthar and Mr. Ravindra Jala
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
Reportable 24/09/2024
1. The petitioner - a renowned National Shooter is constrained
to approach this Court against illegal and arbitrary action of the
respondents, who have refused to grant her arms license on
absolutely untenable grounds.
2. The facts appertain are, that on 13.12.2021, the petitioner
applied for arms license in prescribed application form (A-1). She
indicated her occupation as a 'Sports Person' and in the column
meant for weapon description, she mentioned SHOTGUNS, DBBL,
SBBL, DBML, SBML.
3. Alongwith the application aforesaid, the petitioner had
enclosed a Police Verification Certificate dated 24.11.2021,
[2024:RJ-JD:39660] (2 of 9) [CW-1237/2024]
certifying that no criminal case is registered against her. She had
also appended a certificate dated 26.11.2021 issued by National
Rifle Association of India certifying that the petitioner is a
renowned shooter and has taken part in 63rd National Shooting
Championship Competitions in Shotgun held at New Delhi from
16.11.2019 to 30.11.2019.
4. The respondents however did not grant her license, for
which, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court
being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9680/2022 (Annexure-8). Said
writ petition came to be decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court on 25.07.2022 in light of the judgment dated 24.05.2022,
passed in the case of Bhan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7422/2022).
5. In furtherance of the order aforesaid, the petitioner
submitted a representation before the District Magistrate, Nagaur,
who vide his order dated 13.10.2022 rejected the petitioner's
application inter-alia observing that there is a danger to security
of public peace and public welfare if a license is granted to the
petitioner. The respondent No.2 held that the license cannot be
granted as per section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1959').
6. Feeling aggrieved of the rejection of her application for grant
of license, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition
invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
7. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner navigated the
Court through various certificates and documents which have been
issued to the petitioner by the National Rifle Association and other
[2024:RJ-JD:39660] (3 of 9) [CW-1237/2024]
Associations in order to establish that the petitioner is a National
Level Shooter and has achieved laurels not only for the State but
also for the Country.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on
04.03.2024, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an interim
order and directed the respondents to grant provisional license
(from 15.03.2024 to 30.05.2024) as the petitioner was preparing
for Olympic Games, 2024 scheduled to be held in Paris. In
furtherance of the interim order so passed, a provisional arms
license came to be issued to the petitioner on 20.03.2024,
obviously for sports category, indicating therein "Renowned
Shooters".
9. The petitioner imported a weapon being 'Bretta 694 Trap
with Adjustable Stock And Accessories' and applied for requisite
entry in her license.
10. The petitioner's provisional license came to be amended and
the particulars of the weapon which the petitioner had imported
were included in the license on 25.04.2024.
11. The petitioner had to move another stay application seeking
appropriate direction for participating in the 22 nd Rajasthan State
Shooting Championship (Shotgun), 2024 notified on 21.06.2024.
12. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an interim order
and directed the District Collector-cum-Magistrate, Deedwana,
District Deedwana-Kuchaman to further direct the police
authorities to release weapon surrendered by the petitioner and
issue provisional license from 15.07.2024 to 19.07.2024, so as to
enable the petitioner-applicant to take part in the ensuing
competition. While passing said order, the Court obligated the
[2024:RJ-JD:39660] (4 of 9) [CW-1237/2024]
petitioner to surrender the weapon to the police station
concerned.
13. The petitioner surrendered her weapon on the date as
ordered by the Court and again when the 175 th Indian Open
Competition Shotgun (NR) Events August 2024 scheduled between
11.08.2024 to 20.08.2024 were announced, she has to move the
third stay application. By way of order dated 07.08.2024, this
Court had directed the District Collector-cum-Magistrate,
Deedwana-Kuchaman to issue provisional license to the petitioner-
applicant.
14. Today, the petitioner has again approached this Court
seeking direction to the respondents to issue license/provisional
license so as to enable her to participate and practice for 67 th
National Shooting Championship Competition (NSCC), which is
scheduled to be held from 18.11.2024 to 10.12.2024.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has to rush to this Court again and again for seeking
interim direction and in this process, not only she remains on
tenterhooks as to whether the license would be issued to her or
not but also finds it difficult to prepare and do practice for the
competition in absence of license and the weapon.
16. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has to
repetitively file applications, this Court deems it appropriate to
decide the writ petition itself as neither the petitioner's rights to
get an arms license can be kept in suspended animation till
eternity nor can she be compelled to approach this Court time and
again.
[2024:RJ-JD:39660] (5 of 9) [CW-1237/2024]
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection
of petitioner's request for issue of arms license by order impugned
dated 13.10.2022 is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. He argued
that petitioner is entitled for arms license and the reasons and
rejection of petitioner's request, citing her case to be covered by
provision of section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Act of 1959 is contrary to
facts, on the face of it.
18. While maintaining that there is no reason to infer that grant
of license to the petitioner would pose threat to security of public
peace or public safety, learned counsel contended that the reasons
given in the impugned order are absolutely uncalled for. Learned
counsel submitted that inference of licensing authority is based on
whims and fancies and solely driven by petitioner's family
background. He contended that regardless of the fact that neither
any criminal case is pending against the petitioner nor has she
indulged in any sort of the crime ever, the respondents have
rejected the petitioner's request for grant of license.
19. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards Rules 36
(4) and 37 of the Arms Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Rules of 2016') and asserted that the petitioner an outstanding
shooter is entitled to arms license in terms of Rule 36 and 37 ibid.
20. Mr. Ladrecha, learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that the petitioner hails from a family of hardened criminals, who
have indulged in a number of heinous offences. He submitted that
if the license is issued to the petitioner-applicant, there is every
likelihood that she would end up in criminal activities.
[2024:RJ-JD:39660] (6 of 9) [CW-1237/2024]
21. Learned Additional Advocate General was however not in a
position to point out any previous incident which could
substantiate State's apprehension.
22. Heard.
23. In order to find the reasons behind the rejection of
petitioner's request for license, this Court read the entire order
under consideration (dated 13.10.2022). This Court is shocked to
find the apathy of the respondent No.2 - the petitioner, a
renowned shooter, instead of being recognized by her own
credentials and the qualities which she possesses, is being
identified by her family background and being branded a 'pseudo
criminal', simply because her father and uncle (Tauji) happened to
be involved in various offences.
24. In the opinion of this Court while deciding rights of a citizen
more particularly, in relation to issuance of license, going by the
spirit of the act, own conduct and candidates' criminal antecedents
alone are to be seen. The family history of the applicant, becomes
absolutely irrelevant, more particularly, when the application is for
license under sports quota.
25. This Court takes a serious exception to the observation made
by the respondent No.2 and other authorities, who despite being
cognizant of the fact that no case is pending against the applicant,
have denied her legit right, simply because, her father and uncle
have been dreaded criminals.
26. During the course of argument, Mr. Bishnoi submitted that
weapon which the petitioner has purchased - Bretta 694 Trap with
Adjustable Stock And Accessories is not a deadly weapon and it is
[2024:RJ-JD:39660] (7 of 9) [CW-1237/2024]
generally used for sports purposes. He iterated that the petitioner
intents to use the weapon for sports purposes only.
27. A perusal of the order impugned dated 13.10.2022, reveals
that the respondent No.2 has observed that petitioner's father,
who is brother of Anand Pal is in jail and because of the rivalry
between Anand Pal's gang and Raju Theth's gang, there can be a
gang war. The finding of respondent No.2 and 3 reveals that if the
license is given to the petitioner, there is every likelihood or strong
probability that she would indulge in criminal activities.
28. In the opinion of this Court, the apprehension expressed by
the District Magistrate, Nagaur is not only baseless but also
uncalled for. Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules of 2016 clearly provide
for grant of arms license to outstanding sports persons subject of
course to a condition of furnishing a certificate by Indian National
Rifle Association. The petitioner is undeniably an outstanding
sports person.
29. The provisions relating to refusal of license are encapsulated
in section 14 of the Act of 1959 which reads as under:-
"Refusal of licences.―(1) Notwithstanding
anything in section 13, licensing authority shall
refuse to grant-
(a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or
section 5 where such licence is required in
respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited
ammunition;
(b) a licence in any other case under Chapter
II,―
(i) where such licence is required by a
person whom the licensing authority has reason
to believe--
(1) to be 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
(2) to be of unsound mind; or
[2024:RJ-JD:39660] (8 of 9) [CW-1237/2024]
(3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence
under this Act; or
(ii) where the licensing authority deems
it necessary for the security of the public
peace or for public safety to refuse to
grant such licence.
(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to
grant any licence to any person merely on the
ground that such person does not own or
possess sufficient property.
(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to
grant a licence to any person it shall record in
writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish
to that person 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."
30. A perusal of sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
section 14 of the Act of 1959 more particularly, word 'necessary'
used therein suggests that the licensing authority shall refuse to
grant license when he deems necessary so to do, that too for the
security of the public peace or for public safety. The observations
made by the respondents in the order impugned are firstly based
on conjunctures and surmises - without there being any material
and secondly, such apprehension cannot be construed to be a
circumstance necessary to refuse to grant license. The expression
'deems it necessary' has different connotation and meaning than
the usual expression - 'deems it appropriate or expedient'.
31. The language used by the Parliament suggests that the
license shall be refused when the licensing authority considers it
'necessary' so to do. In absence of any criminal antecedent, it
cannot be said that it is necessary to refuse license, when the
petitioner a renowned shooter has asked for license under sports
category.
[2024:RJ-JD:39660] (9 of 9) [CW-1237/2024]
32. According to this Court, taking part in sports is like an
occupation maybe, for pleasure or fame. Hence, the impugned
action on the part of the respondents is not only arbitrary but also
impinges upon fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner
under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
33. Denial of license to the petitioner amounts to infraction of
her rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India
also, as the petitioner has been discriminated solely on the ground
of her family background.
34. The petitioner can neither be cursed for her father's
culpability nor can the State tether her with her father's acts or
crimes to continue all through her life, though she had no role to
play.
35. The writ petition is therefore, allowed.
36. The impugned order dated 13.10.2022 is hereby quashed
and set aside. The District Magistrate, Deedwana-Kuchaman is
directed to issue a license to the petitioner (not provisional) in
accordance with law within a period of ten days from today.
37. All interlocutory application so also stay petition stand
disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
430-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
