Awdhesh Singh Bhadoriya vs State of M.P. and others

Sheel Nagu, Judge

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India assails the order dated 29/07/2010 (Annexure P/1) by which the respondent No. 1 has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of arms licence (unrestricted Bore Pistol/ Revolver). The contention of the petitioner who appears in person is that despite favourable recommendations of the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, The District Magistrate, Gwalior and the Commissioner Revenue, Gwalior and despite existence of hostile atmosphere of law and order prevailing in and around, the place of residence of the petitioner which has been manifested by the petitioner by citing various incidents of serious offence having been committed in the vicinity of residence of the petitioner. It is the further contention that respondent No. 1 by ignoring all the said relevant favourable considerations has wrongly rejected the application for grant of arms licence.

The State on the other hand has filed it''s response primarily stating that mere favourable recommendation of District Authorities cannot be a guarantee for grant of arms licence since other considerations also weigh in the mind of the State while taking the final decision.

The State in it''s return in paragraph 8 has averred that "something else" requires to be considered and to elucidate this vague sounding term "something else", 11 contingencies has been cited on which refusal can be based. The State further contends that on the basis of above 11 grounds the claim of the petitioner for grant of arms licence has been rejected. The State further submits that the petitioner is not fulfilling any criteria under the law impelling the State to grant arms licence.

The arguments of learned counsel for rival parties are heard and the record is perused.

A bare perusal of the impugned order makes it crystal clear that no reasons are assigned while refusing grant of arms licence and therefore, the factum of the impugned order being non-speaking is obvious which has not been denied by the State in it''s return.

Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 pertains to refusal of licence where reasons have been codified for refusal of grant of licence for different categories of fire arms. Section 14(3) of Arms Act is reproduced below for convenience.

(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.

A bare reading of the sub-Section (3) of Section 14 of Arms Act elucidate that assigning of reasons for refusal is mandatory, provided, public interest demands otherwise.

On the anvil of above said statutory provision if the impugned order is tested, it is seen that reasons for refusal are not contained therein. The gloriously vague terms

and

have been used for justifying refusal which cannot suffice the requirements of law.

In view of the impugned order being non-speaking, it would not be appropriate for this court to enter into the merits of the case, especially as to whether the real reason for refusal for grant of licence to the petitioner was justified or not.

Non-application of mind on the part of licensing authority is palpable.

Therefore, this court without entering into the merits of the reasons which though not visible on the face of impugned order but may exists after piercing of the veil, intends to dispose of this writ petition by sending the matter back to the competent licensing authority for reconsideration. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated below:-

The impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 29/07/2010 passed by the respondent No. 1 is quashed.

The competent licensing authority is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence in the light of the statutory provisions contained in the Arms Act, the favourable recommendation of the authorities and the prevailing law and order situation in the vicinity of the residence of petitioner within a period of 60 days from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Since, the order impugned is non-speaking and has been passed in blatant disregard of the mandatory statutory provision of Section 14(3) of the Arms Act, it would be appropriate to burden the State with cost of litigation which is quantified at Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order with an advance information of compliance in this regard to the Registry of this Court.

Certified copy as per rules.