IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V. Chitambaresh W.P. (C) No. 37679 of 2010 Dated this the 20th day of January, 2012 Head Note:- Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 3, 13 and 14 - Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 - Petitioner applied for licence to possess a revolver for the reason of self-protection. District Superintendent of Police and Divisional Forest Officer recommended grant of arms licence. Taluk Tahsildar has reported that the neighbours in the locality have no good opinion about the petitioner. Such reports of the Taluk Tahsildar cannot gain precedence over the reports of the District Superintendent of Police and Divisional Forest Officer. Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 3, 13 and 14 - Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 - No specific instance of the petitioner having been involved in any crime at any point of time earlier has been reported either by the police or any other departmental officer. The mere fact that the petitioner does not own or possess any property is not a reason enough to deny arms licence. There is also no finding by the authorities that it is expedient to refuse arms licence 'for the security of public peace or for public safety. Chronological List of Cases Cited:-
For Petitioner:-
For Respondents
J U D G M E N T 1. The petitioner applied for licence for a 22 bore rifle made by Remington (USA) in terms of Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Ext. P1 is the application for arms licence in the prescribed format wherein the need projected by the petitioner is self protection. The District Magistrate who is the licensing authority called for reports from the departments of Police, Forest and Revenue. Ext. P2 is the report of the District Superintendent of Police to the effect that there is no objection in granting a licence to the petitioner from the point of view of security. Ext. P3 is the report of the Divisional Forest Officer to the effect that there is no objection in granting a licence from the point of view of forest and wild life protection. The District Magistrate however by Ext. P4 order rejected the application for licence put in by the petitioner. The said order was challenged in appeal under Section 18 of the Act to the Land Revenue Commissioner raising several grounds. Ext. P5 is the order of the appellate authority confirming the order of the licensing authority disallowing the application for licence. The concurrent orders of the authorities have been challenged in this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The two reasons held out against the petitioner for not granting an arms licence are the following: (i) The Taluk Tahsildar has reported that the neighbours in the locality have no good opinion about the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner does not own or possess any land. A counter - affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate supporting the rejection of the application for licence for reasons stated supra. The report of the Taluk Tahsildar which strikes a discordant note from the other reports has been produced as Ext. R1(a) along with the counter - affidavit. I heard Advocate Smt. Reshmi K. V. on behalf of the petitioner and the Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. 3. Section 13 of the Act deals with the grant of licences and the relevant provisions thereof are as follows: "13. Grant of Licences. - (1) xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) On receipt of an application, the licensing authority shall call for the report of the officer in charge of the nearest police station on that application, and such officer shall send his report within the prescribed time. (2A) The licensing authority, after such enquiry, if any, as it may, consider necessary, and after considering the report received under sub-section (2), shall subject to other provisions of this Chapter, by order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same." True it is that the licensing authority as part of his enquiry under Section 13(2A) of the Act may be within his powers to call for a report from the Taluk Tahsildar. All that the Taluk Tahsildar has reported is that the neighbours in the locality have no good opinion about the petitioner. Such reports of the Taluk Tahsildar cannot gain precedence over the reports of the District Superintendent of Police and Divisional Forest Officer. The report of the District Superintendent of Police obtained under Section 13(2) of the Act does recommend the grant of arms licence. No specific instance of the petitioner having been involved in any crime at any point of time earlier has been reported either by the police or any other departmental officer. 4. Section 14 of the Act deals with the refusal of licences and the relevant provisions thereof are as follows: "14. Refusal of Licences. - (1) Notwithstanding anything in Section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant - a) xxxx xxxx xxxx (b)(i) xxxx xxxx xxxx (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." Thus the mere fact that the petitioner does not own or possess any property (which admittedly stands in the name of his mother only) is not a reason enough to deny arms licence. There is also no finding by the authorities that it is expedient to refuse arms licence 'for the security of public peace or for public safety'. 5. The Act expressly contemplates the grant of licence for a person to acquire, possess or carry any fire arm or ammunition in accordance with the provisions thereof. The Supreme Court dealing with a case of rejection of application for manufacture of arms under the Act held in Ranjith Singh Vs. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 311 as follows: "An applicant for a licence is entitled to have it considered in accordance with the terms of the statute and to press for its grant on the basis of the criteria set forth in it." A total non - application of mind is well evident in the instant case and the authorities have refused licence for reasons not justifiable by the provisions of the Act. I should bear in mind that licence to possess a fire arm should not be granted for the mere asking in view of the inherent danger posed by it. This Court in V.K. Thomas Vs. Revenue Board, 1987 (2) KLT 782, had occasion to observe as follows: "It needs no reiteration that the issue of licences for possessing deadly arms should be done with great care and caution and with greater circumspection and fuller realisation of the changed times." I therefore quash Exts. P4 and P5 and direct the first respondent District Magistrate to reconsider Ext. P1 application for arms licence strictly within the parameters of the Act. 6. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. |
