AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner is a holder of licence issued under the Arms Act (hereinafter to be referred as Act) as well as Rules framed there under (hereinafter to
be referred as Rules). Record shows that petitioner is holding his licence since long and had been getting the same renewed from time to time on
deposit of requisite fee from the competent authority as envisaged under the Act and the Rules framed there under. Annexure ""A"" attached to the
writ petition indicates that the petitioner was permirred:
to repair all types of N. P. Bore Fire Arms;
to sell and keep for sale :
(i) SBBL 12 Bore Short Guns 200 (Two Hundred)
(ii) DBBL 12 Bore Short Guns 100 (One Hundred)
(iii) SBML50 (Fifty)
(iv) DBML50 (Fifty)
W N. P. Bore Rifles 50 (Fifty)
(vi) N. P. Bore Revolver 50 (Fifty)
(vii) N. P. Bore Pistol 50 (Fifty).
Similarly the petitioner was authorized by this licence following quantity of ammunition which he could sell or keep for sale :
(i) 12Bore Cartridges 30,000
(Thirty Thousands)
(ii) N. P. Bore Rifle Cartridges
10,000 (Ten Thousands)
(iii) Pistol/Revolver Cartridges
10,000 (Ten Thousands)
(iv) Percussion Caps 20,000
(Twenty Thousands)
(v) Gun Powder 50 KG (Fifty KG)
Annexure ""A"" as well as the original file produced by Shri Rehman shows that the licence of the petitioner was being renewed from year to year by
the competent authority forgetting the above said quantity of arms and ammunition, as detailed in the said licence, till the year ending of 31st
December, 1997.
Here it may be appropriate to notice few provisions of Arms Act as well as the Rules framed there under. Section 5 deals with the licence for
manufacture, sale etc. of Arms and Ammunition. This provision is contained in Chapter II of the Act. In accordance with the provisions of Section
13 of the Act, on receipt of an application for the grant of licence under Chapter II, licence is granted after such an application had been processed
by the competent authority in Form No: XII of Schedule III of the Arms Rules 1962. The conditions, subject to which licence to deal in arms and
ammunition is renewed, are contained in Form XII itself.
Section 15 of the Act deals with the duration of licence and its renewal. No doubt under this Section life of a licence, unless revoked earlier, is
three years from the date of which it is granted, still under the Proviso to Section 15(1) of the Act it can be granted for a shorter period and unless
it is revoked earlier, it continues to remain in force for such period from the date of which it is granted as the licensing authority may in each case
determine.
Under Section 15(3) of the Act, a licence is entitled to get the licence renewed, unless the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in
writing otherwise decides. For ready reference Section 15 of the Act is reproduced herein below:
Duration and renewal of licence. (1)A licence under Sec.3 shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for a period of three years from the
date on which it is granted: Provided that such a licence may be granted for a shorter period if the person by whom the licence is required so
desires or ff the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing considers in any case that the licence should be granted for a shorter
period.
A licence under any other provision of Chapter ll shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for such period from the date on which it is granted
as the licensing authority may in each case determine.
Every licence shall, unless the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides in any case, be renewable for the same
period for which the licence was originally granted and shall be so renewable from time to time, and the provisions of Sees. 13 and 14 shall apply
to the renewal of a licence as they apply to the grant thereof.
Licensing Authority has further the authority to vary the conditions of the licence subject to which it has been granted, and for that purpose it had
to ask the licence holder by a notice in writing to deliver the licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice. However on an
application of the licence holder the licensing authority is competent to vary the conditions of licence. This provision further authorises the licensing
authority to suspend a licence for such period as it may think fit by an order in writing. Section 17 of the Act, to which a reference is going to be
made hereinafter, is also reproduced herein below:
Variation suspensation and revocation of licenses. (1) The licensing authority may very 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 licenceholder by notice in writing to deliver up the
licence to it within such time as may be specified in the notice.
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.
The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke as 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
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
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
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 subsection (1) requiring him to deliver up the licence.
The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder there of.
Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under subsection subsection (3), it shall record in writing the reasons there for and furnish to the holder of the licence on demand a brief statement of the same unless
in any case the licensing authority if of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.
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 relation to the
suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority
A Court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made there under may also suspend or revoke the licence;
Provided that if the conviction is setaside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void.
An order of suspension or revocation under subsection (7) may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court when exercising its
powers of revision.
The Central Government may, be order in the official Gazette, suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any
licence 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 by specified in this behalf in The order of suspension or revocation.
Rule 53 of the Arms Rules deals with the variation of conditions of licence. On the basis of aforesaid provisions governing the renewal of licence,
the petitioner admittedly applied for the renewal of his licence issued to him by the competent authority vide Annexure ""A"" around 31st October,
97 praying therein to renew the licence in question for the period 1st January, 1998 to 31st December, 1998.
On the directions of the Court, Shri Rehman has produced the original file relating to the application for renewal of his licence for perusal of the
court. From the record it is clear that there is no report adverse against the petitioner to demonstrate that while working as a dealer of arms and
ammunition he conducted his business in a manner prejudicial to the interest of State. Rather, there are clear cut recommendations made by the
District Administration i.e. the District Magistrate as well as Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, when latter had categorically stated that local
police have no objection if the licence of the firm is renewed for the year 1998, and before observing so the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Jammu had asked for the report of Station House Officer, Police Station Pacca Danga, Jammu.
Shri Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no authority vested with the respondents to reduce the quota either
under the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed there under, and the action of respondents is in violation of Section 17 of the Act. It was
further submitted by Shri Sethi that the action of respondents in reducing the quota of the petitioner is arbitrary as well as discriminatory. In support
of this plea it was pointed out by Shri Sethi that two other similarly situate licence holders, to whom licenses vide Annexure ""B"" & ""C"" to the writ
petition had been issued and whose sales according to Shri Sethi were also on the lower side, have been allowed the same quantity of arms and
ammunition as held by them prior to 1.1.1998. Thus according to Shri Sethi there is no legitimate ground disclosed to the petitioner which
authorises and or enables the competent authority to reduce the quota of arms and ammunition for the relevant year, as detailed in the licence.
Here it may be appropriate to notice that against the quota of arms and ammunition, which the petitioner could sell or keeps for sale, has been
reduced while renewing licence for the period 1st January, 1998 to 31st December'98 and the quantity allowed is as under:
S/DBBL Guns 100 each
S/DBML10each
Pistol/Revolver 10 each
12Bore Cartridges 10,000 numbers.
Rifle Cartridges 1000 numbers
Pistol/Revolver Cartridges 1000 numbers
Percussion Caps 1000 numbers
Gun Powder 10 KG
It is this order of substantial reduction which has been questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition and it has been prayed that respondents
may be directed to renew the licence in question for the period 1st January, 1998 to 31st December, 1998, permitting the petitioner to sell as well
as keep for sale the quantity of arms and ammunition, as detailed hereinabove in this judgement.
Shri Rehman, learned Government Advocate submitted that the quantity of arms and ammunition was reduced while renewing the licence of the
petitioner for the relevant period Keeping in view the sales thereof in the immediate preceding year ending on 31st December, 1997, Similarly with
reference to Sections 17 & 18 of the Act, Shri Rehman made an attempt to justify the reduction in the quota of arms and ammunition while
renewing the licence by the competent authority. Another argument addressed was that permitting the quantity of arms and ammunition vide
Annexure ""A"" is also a condition of licence, as such it was within the competence of authority concerned to have reduced the same.
As already observed and found out from the record, which position Mr. Rehman very fairly stated that District Authorities (Civil) as well as police
had recommended the renewal of licence as applied for by the petitioner. Record of the case also does not support the plea of respondents that
the petitioner was unable to sell the requisite quantity of the arms as well as ammunition. If a reference is made to the balance as detailed in the
official file produced as on 31st December, 1997, this plea has been raised simply to be rejected.
Another contention raised by Shri Rehman was that petitioner should have approached the appellate authority provided under the Act and in this
behalf reference was made to the provisions of Section 18 of the Arms Act. This argument has been raised simply to be rejected in the face of
proviso to Section 18(1) of the Act. Reason being that order in the instant case has been passed by the Government and not by any other
authority, as such there no merit in this plea.
Another plea raised in support of this writ petition by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that similarly situate persons are being treated
dissimilarity. In this behalf a reference is made to the pleadings in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the writ petition. An omnibus and general reply has been
given in these paras of the writ petition in the reply filed by the respondents without specifically denying the statement of facts detailed in these
paras of the writ petition. Reply filed by the respondents cannot be termed even remotely to be a denial in the eyes of law. For ready reference
paras 9 to 12 of the writ petition together with their reply are reproduced herein below:
That the reduction of quota of Arms and Ammunition of the petitioner is bad in the eyes of law as no opportunity of being heard was given to
the petitioner before taking steps.
That no allegations have been communication to the petitioner, which may have implied the respondent1 to take action for reducing the quota of
the petitioner.
That the respondents are also not justified in reducing the quota of Arms and Ammunition in favour of the petitioner, as in the current year about 50
fresh licenses have been issued by the government and when the government is granting fresh licenses, as such, there is no question or any
justification with the respondents for reducing the quota of the petitioner, without any fault committed by the petitioner.
Those similarly situated dealers in the line have been granted renewal in routing matter. The case of M/S Quality Gun House and M/S Jammu
Armoury are quoted here, in whose case the renewal has been accorded on original quota, and the copies of their licenses are annexed herewith
and marked as AnnexuresP2and P3 respectively. The aforesaid fact clearly show that discriminatory treatment has been metted out to the
petitioner when the Arms licenses have been renewed/extended in other cases as per original quota allotted to them i.e. on the original sanctioned
strength.
Reply of the respondents to these paras is as under:
91011) In reply to paras 9 to 11 it is submitted that the reduction in quota of the petitioner is not done with any malafide intention and is directly
finked with the annual sale of the petitionerconcern.
In reply to para 12 it is submitted that the. Respondent No.1 has in no way discriminated the petitioner; the example of quality Gun House
quoted by the petitioner itself clear the position, as the petitioner is the proprietor of M/S quality Gun House. In case the respondent would have
any malafide intention against the petitioner, the quota in this case would have also been reduced. Another rational or object in the reduction of the
quota of the petitioner's concern is the sale statement of the previous year, perusal of which, clearly evidences that a substantial portion of
approved quota has remained unsold for the reasons known to the petitioner. It was in this background that reasonable reduction have close
bearing with the sale statement of previous years has been effected.
17 So far the plea of petitioner being owner of M/S Quality Gun House is concerned, it is without any basis from record. When confronted with
this situation as well as licence issued by the competent authority in favour of said concern (Annexure ""C"" to the writ petition), Shri Rehman fairly
stated that from this document it is clear that petitioner has nothing to do anything directly, indirectly, or remotely with the said concern i.e. M/S
Quality Gun House, although he persisted that in the communications since telephone number of petitioner concern and that of the Quality Gun
House is same, therefore this court should return a finding as pleaded by the respondents. Merely using the same telephone number will not convert
the licence from the licenses of Annexure ""C"" to the petitioner. The stand of respondents as such deserves to be rejected in this behalf and it is
ordered accordingly
From the narration of above facts it is clear that the action of the respondents in reducing the quantity of arms and ammunition as also deleting
certain items for the period 1st January, 1998 to 31st December, 1998 cannot be sustained either in the facts, circumstances and background of
the present case or in law. In addition to this action of the respondents is also arbitrary, besides being discriminatory for the reasons set out
hereinabove. Even from record the action of the respondents is not sustainable. Consequently this writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is
ordered accordingly.
As a result of the petition having been allowed it is directed that the concerned respondent shall renew the licence or petitioner for the period 1st
January, 1998 to 31st December 1998 for the same quantity of arms and ammunition as held by the petitioner originally, within two weeks from
today so that the petitioner is in a position to avail the quota of current year. It is further directed that since time is short, application for renewal of
licence for the period 1st January 1999 to 31st December, 1999 shall be entertained and considered by the respondents on the basis of original
quantity of arms and ammunition for its renewal, as and when it is filed.
No costs.
C. M. P. No: 461/98
No orders in view of the orders passed in the main petition.