Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Buta Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 August, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:36122]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2385/2019

Buta Singh S/o Shri Gurdev Singh, Aged About 43 Years, By
Caste     Jat    Sikh,    Resident       Of     Village      Dhaba     Jhalar,   Tehsil
Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary, Home
         Affairs Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner.
3.       Additional District Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sri
         Ganganagar.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. G.R. Goyal
For Respondent(s)             :     Ms. Neelam Sharma, AGC.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

Reserved on : 12/08/2025

Pronounced on : 19/08/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

against the impugned order dated 10.11.2014 (Annex.3) passed

by learned Additional District Magistrate, Suratgarh, District

Sriganganagar so also the impugned order dated 14.11.2018

(Annex.4) passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner

Division, Bikaner in Appeal No.20/2014.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned

Additional District Magistrate, Suratgarh has denied the renewal of

Arms licence bearing No.03/2004 issued to the petitioner on the

ground that criminal cases were registered against the petitioner.

[2025:RJ-JD:36122] (2 of 5) [CW-2385/2019]

He submits that out of the two criminal cases as mentioned in the

impugned order, in one case a compromise has been arrived at

between the parties and the second case was decided while

extending the benefit of probation. He further submits that both

incidents occurred in year 2008 and subsequent thereto, no

criminal case has been registered against the petitioner.

2.1 He contends that the impugned order dated 10.11.2014 has

been passed without assigning any reasons. The order is non-

speaking and there is no finding as to why the renewal of the

licence would be against security of public peace or against the

public interest.

2.2 He submits that being aggrieved by the order dated

10.11.2014, an appeal was preferred before the learned Divisional

Commissioner, Bikaner, however, the same was also decided in a

cursory manner affirming the order passed by the learned

Additional District Magistrate, Suratgarh.

2.3 He argues that the learned Appellate Authority has neither

assigned any reasons nor has the counsel appearing on behalf of

the State placed any material to show how the renewal of the

licence would be against the public interest.

2.4 In support of the above submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioner relied on Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.B.

Special Appeal (W) No.576/2003 (Khem Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 18.01.2005 and submits that the

Division Bench of this Court while dealing with identical

controversy observed that the authority while refusing renewal of

licence have to assign reason as to how the renewal, during

[2025:RJ-JD:36122] (3 of 5) [CW-2385/2019]

pendency of the criminal case, would be against the public

interest.

In view of the submissions made above, learned counsel for

the petitioner prays that the impugned orders be quashed & set-

aside and appropriate directions be issued to the respondent

authorities to consider the case of the petitioner afresh.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for

the petitioner, however, she is not in a position to refute the

observation made by the Division Bench in the case of Khem

Singh (supra).

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

5. A bare perusal of the order dated 10.11.2014 would reveal

that though there is a reference to two criminal cases registered

against the petitioner, however, no reason is assigned as to how

the renewal would be against the larger public interest.

5.1 Similarly, even the Appellate Authority has simply recorded

the submissions made by Government Counsel and has not given

any definite finding.

5.2 The Division Bench of this Court in Khem Singh (supra)

while dealing with the identical issue, observed as under :-

"3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the District Magistrate has not recorded any finding to the effect that it was necessary to cancel the licence for the security of the public peace or the public safety. Mere fact that some case have been registered against the appellant, cannot be a ground to conclude that the cancellation of the licence was necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Addl. Government Advocate that the material on record clearly shows that the appellant is a person with criminal background. As

[2025:RJ-JD:36122] (4 of 5) [CW-2385/2019]

such the learned Magistrate was right in considering that the cancellation of the Arms Licence was necessary for the security of the public peace.

4. In order to appreciate the contentions, it would be appropriate to extract material portion of Sec.17 of the Arms Act, 1959 relevant for our purpose as follows :-

"(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 was may be specified in the notice.

(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence,-

(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or

(5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-sec. (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-sec. (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."

5. From the reading of the provision it is manifest that the licensing authority may revoke a licence if it deem necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. The power of suspension of Arms licence is necessary concomitant of power of revocation for effective control and regulation as also for the security of the public peace or public safety. Such a power has to be exercised with great circumspection. The satisfaction of the authority has to be objective and must be based upon relevant material. Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the licence holder is not sufficient for cancelling the licence. A licence can be revoked u/s. 17(3)(b) 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.

6. In the instant case the impugned order suffers from all these defects. The impugned order of the District Magistrate does not indicate as to how the cancellation of the Arms licence in favour of the appellant was necessary for security of the public peace."

[2025:RJ-JD:36122] (5 of 5) [CW-2385/2019]

6. As noted in the present case, the two criminal cases as

referred in the impugned orders were already decided. One was

compromised and another was decided while extending benefit of

probation. That being so, the authorities were required to assign

reason as to why denial of the renewal of arms licence was

necessary for security of public peace or for public safety. In

absence of any such reasoning, the impugned orders cannot be

sustained.

7. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned

orders dated 10.11.2014 and 14.11.2018 are quashed and set-

aside.