AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner made Ext.P4 application to the third Respondent for an Arms licence, under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Rules framed there under. The need of licence indicated in Ext.P4 application was sports purposes and self protection. He has also stated that he is a member of the Ernakulam District Rifle Association and is also participating in rifle competitions. According to the Petitioner, certificates in support of the aforesaid claim were also produced along with the application.
The District Collector obtained reports from the Commissioner of Police and the DFO. Thereafter, Ext.P11 order was passed by the District Collector, stating that the DFO conveyed his no objection and that Commissioner of Police reported that there is absolutely no threat to the life of the Petitioner and that as per the Arms Rules, 1962, licence for sports purpose can be issued only to licenced Sports Club or Associations. Accepting the recommendation of the Commissioner of Police, licence was rejected to the Petitioner.
Against that order, petitioner filed an appeal before
Contention raised by the counsel for the Petitioner is that there has not been any independent application of mind, both by the original and the appellate authorities. It is also contended that the order passed is in violation of the law laid down by this Court in Ganesh Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue (LR), . It is also argued that the recommendation of the Commissioner of Police, relied on in Ext.P11 order passed by the third Respondent, is contrary to Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959. It is on these grounds, the aforesaid orders are impugned.
A reading of Ext.P11 order passed by the third Respondent shows that without any independent application of mind, the third Respondent has merely gone by the recommendation made by the Commissioner of Police and rejected the application. This itself will vitiate the order, in view of the principles laid down in the judgment in Ganesh Prasad''s case (Supra).
The recommendation of the Commissioner of Police was to the effect that for sports purpose licence can be issued only to recognised Sports club or an Association. In other words, according to the Commissioner, licence for sports purpose cannot be granted to an individual applicant. Section 3 of the Arms Act deals with issuance of arms licence. Section 3 reads as under:
Licence for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition.
(1) No person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in his behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under:
Provided that a person may, without himself holding a licence, carry any firearms or ammunition in the presence, or under the written authority, of the holder of the licence for repair or for renewal of the licence or for use by such holder.
(2) Not with standing anything contained in Sub-section (1), no person, other than a person referred to in Sub-section (3), shall acquire, have in his possession or carry, at any time, more than three firearms:
Provided that a person who has in his possession more firearms than three at the commencement of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983, may retain with him any three of such firearms and shall deposit, within ninety days from such commencement, the remaining firearms with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or, subject to the conditions prescribed for the purpose of Sub-section (1) of Section 21, with a licensed dealer or, where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armoury referred to in that Sub-section.
(3) Nothing contained in Sub-section(2) shall apply to any dealer in firearms or to any member of the rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognised by the Central Government using a point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle for target practice.
(4) The provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (6) (both inclusive) of Section 21 shall apply in relation to any deposit of firearms under the proviso to Sub-section (2) as they apply in relation to the deposit of any arm or ammunition under Sub-section (1) of that section.
Section 3 does not say that licence will be issued only to Club or Association. On the other hand, a reading of Sub-section (3) of Section 3, clearly indicates that licence can be granted to member of Rifle Clubs or Associations which are recognised by the Central Government. Therefore, if the Petitioner''s membership is in a Rifle Club which is recognised by the Central Government, he is eligible to apply for licence and the recommendation of the Commissioner of Police to the contrary is erroneous. Consequently, the view taken by the District Collector acting upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Police is also illegal.
Coming to Ext.P12, the appellate order passed by the second Respondent, he has proceeded on the basis that the purpose mentioned in the application is only for self protection. The incorrectness of this assumption is evident from Ext.P4 application itself where sports purpose is also mentioned. Therefore, Ext.P12 order also is unsustainable.
For the aforesaid reasons, I quash Exts.P11 and P12 orders passed by Respondents 2 and 3 and I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, the third Respondent will reconsider Ext.P4 application made by the Petitioner along with the documents produced and pass fresh orders in the light of what is stated above. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.