The Allahabad High Court held that an arms licence cannot be revoked unless the authority records specific findings showing violation of Rule 32 of the Arms Rules, 2016. The Court was examining a petition filed by a licence-holder whose firearm licence had been cancelled by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, and whose appeal had also been rejected by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division. The Court noted that neither authority identified which part of Rule 32 had been breached, observing that such omissions rendered the orders arbitrary and unsustainable.
The petitioner was granted a licensed .32 bore revolver, which he had been regularly renewing. A notice was later issued to him on the basis of a police report, directing him to deposit his weapon and respond to allegations suggesting misuse of the firearm. He submitted a detailed reply denying any misconduct, asserting that he had never discharged the weapon in public nor violated licence conditions, and that no criminal proceedings were pending against him. Despite this, the District Magistrate cancelled his licence, and the Commissioner affirmed the decision on appeal, prompting the present challenge before the High Court.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the cancellation was based purely on conjecture and lacked any factual foundation. It was submitted that Rule 32 of the Arms Rules, 2016, invoked by the authorities, was wholly inapplicable, as the petitioner had not carried or fired the weapon in a prohibited manner. The petitioner maintained that any cartridges expended were during routine cleaning and testing, not in a public place, and emphasised that the authorities had failed to appreciate his reply or establish any violation. It was further contended that seizure of the weapon prior to actual cancellation was contrary to law.
The State contended that the cancellation order was duly passed after considering the police report and relevant records, and that the Commissioner had rightly upheld the decision. It was argued that no interference was warranted.
The High Court examined the reasoning adopted by both authorities and found that the cancellation orders lacked the essential findings required for invoking Rule 32. Reproducing the Rule in its order, the Court noted that Rule 32 deals strictly with carrying, brandishing, or discharging a firearm in public places and prescribes revocation only when such acts are established.
The Court explicitly observed, “Before invoking Rule 32, the authority must form an opinion that the firearm was not carried in proper protective gear, or was brandished, discharged, or blank-fired in a public place. Such findings are sine qua non for cancellation.”
It further noted that the orders neither identified which sub-rule had allegedly been violated nor recorded any material showing brandishing or discharge of the weapon in public. The petitioner’s explanation regarding testing and cleaning had also not been considered. The Court added that even the conclusion that the petitioner was “not a person of good standing” had no basis in the record.
The appellate authority, the Court held, adopted the same flawed reasoning and failed to independently analyse the facts or the petitioner’s reply, rendering its order cryptic and unsustainable.
Holding that both orders were arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to the requirements of Rule 32, the Court quashed the District Magistrate’s cancellation order as well as the Commissioner’s appellate order. The Court restored the petitioner’s arms licence, subject to its current validity, and directed that the seized weapon and cartridges be returned to him immediately upon production of a valid licence.
Case Title: Yogendra Prasad Vs. State Of U.P. and Others
Case No.: Writ - C No. - 21944 of 2022
Coram: Justice Kunal Ravi Singh
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Kailash Singh Kushwaha, Ramesh Chandra Yadav
Advocate for Respondent: C.S.C.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
