Harpreet vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Another

In this petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 07/08/2018 and 26/03/2011 (Annexures P/1

& P/2) with further direction to the respondents to grant N.P. Bore pistol/revolver license to the petitioner forthwith. The respondents have passed the

impugned order dated 07/08/2018 (Annexure P/1) which is reproduced herein below for ready reference and convenience :-

- -

, 07/08/2018

0 16-970/2016// 1 ,

, , /

/

14(), ()

( )

2- .. 373 24.07.2012 .. .. ..

585 ( ) 24 2012 ,

( )

Â

Â

..

 ( )

Â

 0 0 ,

0 0 0 16-970/2016/ / -1 07/08/2018

-

, , 0 Â / / /9-5/162/2016/1016, 22/08/2016

,

, 0 /9-5/2017/16/386 03.08.2016 ,

Â

..

, ;

, , ,

5.

Â

 0 0 ,

Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily placed reliance on the provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 wherein, the reasons for refusal

of the arms license has been specified. It is submitted by Shri Dudawat that none of these reasons have been specified in the order impugned and the

same is contrary to the provisions of law which is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, Shri Vijay Sundram, learned Panel Lawyer for the State contended that though the petitioner has raised the objection that while

recommending his case for grant of license by concerned authorities i.e. Commissioner, District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, the arms

license has not been granted to the petitioner. On reading of impugned order (Annexure P/1), it is crystal clear that the competent authority has rightly

passed the impugned order in accordance with notification Annexures R/1 & R/2, therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, which is relevant for the purpose of this case is reproduced herein below :-

“14. 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 unsound mind, or

(3) to be for any reason unfit for a license 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 refuse 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.

On perusal of the same, it is apparent that the provisions of section 14 has not been considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order

(Annexure P/1). The impugned order has been passed in mechanical manner and the reasons stated in the impugned order cannot be a ground for

rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Having perused the impugned order and upon consideration of the submissions advanced, the impugned order

dated 07/08/2018 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to file fresh representation along with certified copy of this order

passed today as well as relevant documents before the competent authority of the respondents within a period of 15 days from today. In case such

direction is complied with within the stipulated period, the competent authority of the respondents is directed to decide the representation of the

petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six

weeks thereafter.

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.