Sunil Kumar Jeevtani vs State Of M.P. & Anr

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 9.9.2016 passed by respondent No.1 in Case No.F-16-306/2016/B-1/II by which the application filed by the petitioner for grant of arms license has been rejected.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is a businessman and looking to the law and order situation in Dabra, he filed an application for grant of arms license for N.P. Bore revolver/pistol. It is submitted that the respondent has issued a circular dated 26.3.2011, thereby prescribing conditions for grant of license of N.P. revolver/pistol.

It is the case of the petitioner that for the self defence as well as safety of his property, the petitioner applied for grant of arm license of N.P. bore pistol/revolver. The police verification was done and the Superintendent of Police recommended for grant of license to the petitioner by its letter dated 18.5.2015. The District Magistrate, District Gwalior also forwarded his recommendation to the State Government for grant of license by its letter dated 16.3.2016. The application for grant of license was rejected by the State Government by order dated 9.9.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that not a single criminal case has been registered against him and the petitioner has a fundamental right to carry on his business without any fear and due to the prevalent situation of law and order in the State of M.P. particularly in the surroundings of Dabra, the petitioner is entitled for Arm License. It is the case of the petitioner that now it has become necessary for a citizen like petitioner to have his own safety measure and that is why he had filed an application for grant of license. It is further submitted that the order passed by the State Government is contrary to the judgment laid down by this Court in the case of Bansilal Nanda vs. State of M.P. & Ors. reported in 1998 (1) MPLJ 365. Further, the application has been rejected without considering the recommendations of the authorities. Further, the rejection order is contrary to the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act which deals with the grant and refusal of license in question. Accordingly, this petition has been filed.

Although the petitioner has also challenged the correctness of the circular dated 26.3.2011 issued by the State Government but during the course of hearing, no argument was advanced on the question of correctness of the circular and the arguments were confined to the impugned order dated 9.9.2016 by which the application filed by the petitioner for grant of arms license was rejected.

The respondents have filed their response and submitted that the discretion is with the authority to grant or not to grant arm license. The Full Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with a issue integrating the powers of Central and State Government to issue executive instructions regarding renewal of arms license and arms dealers license and the discretionary power of the Central/State Government has been upheld by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pratikha Chauhan (Smt.) vs. State of M.P. reported in (2013) MPHT 109. It is further submitted that the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of license is to be considered in the light of the directions issued in the notification and since the petitioner was not found fit for grant of license, therefore, the application was rejected. It is further submitted that the authority before rejecting an application has assigned a reason that the petitioner has no danger from any particular person or any group of persons and, therefore, he is not covered by the new policy of the State Government.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Neither the petitioner nor the State has placed the copy of the application filed by the petitioner for grant of arms license. From the contents of the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner has made wild allegation regarding the law and order situation in the State of M.P. specifically in Tahsil Dabra, District Gwalior. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was ever threatened by any person or any group of persons. In support of his wild allegation regarding the law and order situation in State of M.P. specifically in and around District Gwalior, no instances have been given by the petitioner in the writ petition. The petitioner has also not clarified that any other businessman was either threatened or illegal recoveries were made from them. Admittedly, no offence was committed against the petitioner or his family members also. The wild allegations with regard to the deteriorating law and order situation in the State of M.P. specifically in Tahsil Dabra, District Gwalior cannot be accepted. Thus it is clear that the petitioner had not made out any case for grant of license.

Accordingly, the respondents did not commit any mistake by rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.