AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)
Through the instant petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is mainly thrown to the order dated 02.01.2026 (Annexure P-7), passed by respondent no.2, wherethrough it has been informed to the Assistant State Public Information Officer, that application for issuance of arms licence of the petitioner has been rejected on the Saral portal, on the basis of report of the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, which was subsequently, conveyed to the petitioner vide order dated 02.03.2026 (Annexure P-8).
Shorn of unnecessary details, the grievance of the petitioner is that while declining his application for issuance of an arms licence, the District Magistrate has assigned no reason whatsoever. Rather, the application appears to have been declined merely on the basis of the report of the concerned SHO, who had “not recommended” the same, which report was thereafter forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal to the District Magistrate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, draws the attention of this Court to Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, and submits that the said provision mandates the licensing authority to record reasons in writing in case it arrives at a conclusion that the application for grant of an arms licence is required to be refused.
To lend vigor to his arguments, he relied upon a judgment passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in “Manpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and others”, (CWP-32495-2019 (Annexure P-13), wherein, in somewhat similar circumstances, the order passed by the District Magistrate refusing the arms licence was set aside.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has made earnest efforts to defend the impugned order and submits that the application was declined on the basis of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police concerned, who had not recommended the issuance of the arms licence.
This Court has considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order reflects following things:-
That the impugned order was never communicated to the petitioner, who was constrained to obtain the same through an application under the Right to Information Act;
That the order carries no reasons, whatsoever. It seems that the District Magistrate, has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. The relevant provision reads as under:-
“14.Refusal of licences. (1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the 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 of unsound mind, or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence 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 refuses 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. ”
A perusal of sub-section 3 of ibid provisions, makes it ample clear that it casts an obligation upon the District Magistrate to record reasons in case of refusal. Unfortunately, this exercise has not been done.
Therefore, the order as impugned before this Court does not pass the test of legality, which, is set aside. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the District Magistrate concerned, to consider and decide the application of the petitioner, afresh, in accordance with law.
It is further expected that, in case the District Magistrate is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the grant of an arms licence, an appropriate opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to him before passing the fresh order.
Let this exercise, as directed above, be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Disposed of accordingly.