Shameullah Khan vs Sheikh Mehboob Basha & Ors.

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 15-04-2011 (Annexure P/5) whereby the State Government (Home Department) rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of Arm Licence.

The petitioner applied for grant of a licence of revolver for the purpose of his self defence. An enquiry was made by District Magistrate Sagar and after obtaining report from Police Station Khurai, he submitted a positive report and recommended for grant of revolver licence to the petitioner. It is averred that similar recommendations were made by Superintendent of Police. The recommendations are filed as Annexure P/1. It is further stated that Tehsildar Khurai also made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner. The relevant recommendations were sent to the Home Department (Annexure P/2). The Home Department by order dated 02-11-2010 rejected the prayer for grant of revolver licence which order was assailed by the petitioner in WP. No.235/11. This WP was decided on 25-04-2011 (Annexure P/4) and the respondents were directed to consider the application and decide the claim by passing a speaking order. In turn, the impugned order has been passed.

Shri Fakhruddin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order contains three reasons for refusal of licence viz (i) the petitioner does not have any agricultural land; (ii) he is not an Income Tax Payer; and (iii) there is no specific threat to his life or property from any individual or group. Leaned counsel by placing reliance on the judgments of this Court submits that reasons assigned in the impugned order are also not in consonance with relevant provision of Arms Act, 1959.

Per contra, Shri Pradeep Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer supported the impugned order. He submits that adequate reasons have been assigned in the impugned order for refusal of the revolver licence. The petitioner has no legal, vested, statutory or constitutional right to get the revolver licence. The rejection order is in consonance with Section 14 of the Arms Act.

No other point is pressed by the parties.

I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

The points involved in this case are no more res-integra. This Court in various cases has dealt with aforesaid aspect. In Bansilal Nanda vs. State of M.P. & Ors . 1998 (1) MPLJ 365, one of the reason for rejection was that in particular area from where the application for grant of licence was filed was not infested by Dacoits or there was no intimidation by Dacoits. This Court in clear terms held that "it cannot be expected for a prospective licence holder that at the time of some attack upon him or where his person or property is in danger, he would go and ask for the arms from the others. The sufficiency of the arms in the township would be no reason for refusing the licence. Whether an area is infested by Dacoits or not would again be no reason because the person or the property of a person does not always face the danger only from the dacoits. There are variety of the reasons for which a person would like to hold an arm with him and the best of those is the self defence." In Bansilal (supra), the matter was remitted back to the Licensing Authority to decide the application afresh in accordance with law. In WP. No.19303/16 ( Ashish Pathak vs. State of M.P .), this Court opined as under:-

"No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced the order dated 29.6.2015 passed in the case of Vikrant Singh. If the same is examined in juxtaposition to the present rejection order dated 18.2.2016, it will be clear that the reasons for rejection are same, hence I am inclined to follow the same course which is followed by this court in W.P.No.14480/15. In the said case this court recorded as under :- "In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 29.6.2015 by which the application for grant of license for pistol/ revolver has been rejected by the respondent No1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application for grant of license under the Arms Act an be rejected only on the grounds enumerated under section 14 of the Arms Act, and the impugned order is de-hors the provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents was unable to point out from the order that the grounds mentioned in the impugned order is referable on the grounds enumerated under section 14 of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Licensing Authority has to decide the application for issuance of arms license on the grounds mentioned under section 14 of the Act. The grounds mentioned in the impugned order is referable under the provisions of section 14 of the Act. The impugned order is accordingly quashed. The State Government is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner by taking into account of provision of Section 14 of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. C.C as per rules." For the same reasons, the impugned order is hereby quashed. The State Government is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner taking into account the provisions of section 14 of the Act."

Similarly, in WP. No.293/17 ( Rajkumar Singh Kushwaha vs. State of M.P. & Ors .), the Gwalior Bench of this Court disapproved the reason for rejection of Arms Licence wherein it is mentioned that there was no threat on the petitioner from any person/group. This Court considered an earlier judgment and opined that the said reason is not in consonance with Section 14 of the Arms Act. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in aforesaid cases decided by different benches. In addition, in my view, whether petitioner is an Income Tax Payer or he is owner of any agricultural land etc is not a relevent consideration for grant of Arms Licence. The aforesaid two reasons are also totally foreign to the requirement of S.14 and cannot become ground for rejecting an application for grant of licence.

In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 15-04-2011 (Annexure P/5) is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Home Department for reconsideration of application of the petitioner strictly in consonance with Section 14 of the Arms Act. The State Government shall take a decision afresh without getting influenced by earlier rejection orders and pass a reasoned order within 90 days from the date of communication of this order.

The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.