AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State/respondent no.2.
The writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:
“(i)Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30/05/2024 issued from the Office of Commissioner, Tirhut Subdivision, Muzafarpur, by which, the Arms Licence Appeal No. 32/2024 preferred by the petitioner against the order of District Magistrate, Vaishali rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence, has been rejected;
(ii)Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the certiorari quashing the order dated 29/12/2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Vaishali in Arms Licence case no. 12/2019-20, whereby the application made by the petitioner for grant of Arms Licence has been rejected;
(iii)Issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities to take steps towards considering the case of the petitioner for grant of arms licence and to grant the same on the basis of the materials produced by the petitioner before the concerned authorities to demonstrate existence of danger to his life and property which can be established on basis of such materials;
(iv)Any other relief that the petitioner may be found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, he had applied on 16.02.2019 for an arms licence in respect of a rifle and a hand gun, both Permissible Arms under the Arms Rules, 2016, and had in his application itself disclosed and annexed F.I.R.s and Sanhas registered by him at Patna, Gopalpur and Vaishali (Sadar) to demonstrate the danger to his life and property. It was submitted that F.I.R. No.271/2018, P.S. Gopalpur, Patna, under Section 387 I.P.C., concerned threatening notes demanding Rs.10,00,000 out of his pending salary arrears, while F.I.R. No.17/2019 dated 11.01.2019, P.S. Sadar Hajipur, Vaishali, recorded that the petitioner was publicly beaten and abused by the husband of his school Principal and five to six others upon his refusing to pay a bribe demanded for disbursal of his salary representations to this effect were also made to the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali on 15.02.2019 and to the Officer-in-Charge, Raghopur on 05.01.2019, pointing out that the petitioner's ancestral home at Raghopur Diyara was a crime-ridden area where he was weak and in a minority .
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that, on the District Magistrate's reference, the Station House Officer, Raghopur forwarded an inquiry report which the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali merely transmitted, without any observation of his own, vide letter no.216 dated 23.06.2019 that no action having followed, the petitioner's earlier writ, C.W.J.C. No.4371/2021, was disposed of on 10.08.2022 with a direction to the District Magistrate, Vaishali to dispose of the pending application, of which the petitioner kept the District Magistrate informed by further representations and that the District Magistrate nonetheless rejected the application by order dated 29.12.2023, memo no.481, relying on a police report never made available to the petitioner and without discussing the F.I.R.s and Sanhas on record, even as the petitioner's compliance application, M.J.C. No.303/2023, stood disposed of on 12.01.2024 on the footing that the application had been decided. It was submitted that the petitioner's appeal, Arms Licence Appeal No.32/2024 before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, was equally rejected by order dated 30.05.2024, which again failed to consider the F.I.R.s and Sanhas
Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the police report was not against the petitioner, the respondents thereby having concealed the relevant document and attempted to mislead this Court and that petitioner had placed all relevant F.I.R.s and Sanhas before the District Magistrate and that both the order dated 29.12.2023 and the appellate order dated 30.05.2024 were passed in a mechanical manner, without considering this material, and are accordingly liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the State/respondent no.2 submits, that on the petitioner's application the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali had submitted his report vide letter no.216 dated 23.06.2019, making no recommendation for grant of the licence that the petitioner, though informed vide memo no.477 dated 21.12.2023 to appear for hearing on 29.12.2023, did not place any supportive document regarding his requirement of arms; and that, under Section 13(3)(b) and Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016, since the police report contained no clear opinion or recommendation in the petitioner's favour, the District Magistrate rejected the application by a reasoned order dated 29.12.2023, memo no.481, which was rightly affirmed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur by speaking order dated 30.05.2024 after hearing the parties. It was accordingly submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed, with leave reserved to file a further or supplementary affidavit as required.
Having heard the parties and perused the materials on record, it becomes imperative to reiterate that, It is true that citizens have no fundamental right to bear arms. Unlike in the United States, possessing or carrying a firearm in India is strictly a regulated privilege governed by statutory law of the Arms Act of 1959. The grant, refusal, renewal, or cancellation of an arms license is accordingly subject to well-defined statutory and judicial safeguards, as summarized below:
Under section 14 and section 17 of the Arms Act, authorities cannot reject or revoke a license based on vague allegations, whims or caprice; such decisions require recorded, objective reasons showing genuine danger to public peace or safety.
Mere involvement or registration of a routine FIR against an applicant or license holder is generally an insufficient ground for outright cancellation or refusal unless active misuse, violence, or a direct threat to public safety is demonstrated.
Police verification reports and threat assessments must be weighed conclusively, rather than dismissed or accepted through generalized assumptions.
An arms license to an individual cannot be denied solely on the ground that the applicant does not have any "specific threat or imminent danger".
The authorities shall not insist upon a safety training course conducted by the accredited trainer or master accredited trainer having license under rule 39, unless the same has been notified by the Central Government by issuing a general or special order in this regard as envisaged in Rule 10(3) of the Arms Rule, 2016.
Applying the above to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the District Magistrate, Vaishali failed to consider the petitioner's application for grant of an arms licence in an objective manner. The order dated 29.12.2023 passed in Arms Licence Case No.12/2019-20, memo no.481, rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner could not produce any document or evidence to show danger to his life and property, without any discussion of the F.I.R.s and Sanhas placed on record, and while relying on a police report of the Officer-in-Charge, Raghopur that was never made available to the petitioner, notwithstanding that the F.I.R.s and Sanhas relied upon by him were registered at Patna, Gopalpur and Vaishali (Sadar) and not at Raghopur. Surprisingly, the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, by order dated 30.05.2024 passed in Arms Licence Appeal No.32/2024, affirmed the rejection in the same perfunctory manner, without independently examining the said material.
Taking into consideration that the petitioner has consistently pleaded a genuine threat to his life and property, duly supported by First Information Reports and Sanhas lodged at the relevant places of occurrence, it is evident that the licensing and appellate authorities ought to have examined his application on an objective consideration of these materials
In these circumstances, the order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Vaishali in Arms Licence Case No.12/2019-20, and the appellate order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Arms Licence Appeal No.32/2024, affirming the same, are hereby quashed.
The District Magistrate, Vaishali is hereby directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for grant of an arms licence in respect of a rifle and hand gun, after giving him an opportunity of hearing, by a reasoned order within three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to produce any document that may be required before the District Magistrate.
Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition is allowed.