Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kumari Amita Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2018
1 W.P. No.18497/2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
Case No. W.P No.18497/2018
Parties Name Kumari Amita Choudhary
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Judgment 04/10/2018
Bench Constituted Single Bench.
Judgment delivered by Justice Sujoy Paul
Whether approved for No
reporting
Name of counsels for For petitioner: Shri Vipin Yadav,
parties Advocate.
For Respondent: Shri Ankit
Agrawal, Govt. Advocate.
Law laid down
Significant paragraph
numbers
ORDER
04/10/2018 This petition assails the order of the State Government dated 08.05.2018 whereby the application for grant of armed license preferred by the petitioner is rejected.
2. Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 and contended that the order impugned does not contain adequate reason.
3. Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate supported the impugned order.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on this aspect.
2 W.P. No.18497/20185. The point involved in this case is no more res intergra. This Court in Jitendra Gupta Vs. State of M.P., 2012 SCC OnLine MP 4187 opined as under:
"(2) Section 14 of the Arms Act reads as under:-
"14. Refusal of licences:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, 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 pubic 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".3 W.P. No.18497/2018
The reasons assigned for refusal of licence should be in consonance with Section 14 of the said Act. The question is whether the reasons assigned for rejecting the petitioner's application is in consonance with section 14? Certain reasons in the impugned cancellation order are same which were considered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4101/2011 (Saurabh Gupta v. State of M.P.). One of the reasons was in the said rejection order with regard to Saurabh Gupta was that there is no special mention of a particular threat from an individual or group. The ground with regard to non-availability of agricultural land and small tax payer were same. This Court disapproved the action and quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back directing the respondents to reconsider it in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Act and in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in 1998 (1) MPLJ 365 (Bansilal Nanda v. State of M.P.). In Bansilal Nanda, it has been held as under:-
"5. According to section 13 of the Indian Arms Act, an application for grant of the licence shall be made to the licensing authority and shall be in such form and shall contain all such particulars and should be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed. On receipt of such an application, after making such inquiries as are considered necessary, the licensing authority may grant the licence or refuse to grant the same. True it is that to grant or refuse the licence is within the domain of the District Magistrate, but a refusal can only be made on the grounds well described under section 14 or the grounds which are akin to it. According to section 14, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant a licence in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunitions or it may be refused if the person seeking the licence has been prohibited by the Arms Act or by any other law for the time being inforce from acquiring such arms or ammunitions or the applicant is of unsound mind from acquiring such arms or ammunitions or the applicant is of unsound mind or he is unfit for any other reason or where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. According to section 14(2) of the Act, the licensing authority shall not refuse to grant the licence merely on the ground that 4 W.P. No.18497/2018 such applicant does not own sufficient property. The licensing authority in the instance case has rejected the application on two grounds. Firstly that in the township of Maihar sufficient arms are available and secondly the area is not infested by the dacoits or there is no intimidation by the dacoits. In my opinion, these two grounds were not sufficient to reject the application. For rejecting the application for grant of a license, the authority must act within section 14 of the Act and if section 14 is not considered to be exhaustive then for a reason which is akin to the reasons given in section 14 of the Act. It is unfortunate that despite recommendations of all concerned, the licensing authority thought it fit not to grant the licence. The appellate order also does not consider these aspects of the matter. According to para 4 of the appellate order, the learned District Magistrate has given proper reasons. In para 5 the learned Commissioner has considered the comments of the District Judge whose order was under challenge before him. I do not understand the propriety of calling for the comments of the authorities whose order was under challenge before the appellate authority. The appellate authority should have decided the matter on its own merits without being influenced by the comments of the officer whose order was under
challenge. It cannot be expected for a prospective licence holder that at the time of some attack upon him or where his person or property is in danger, he would go and ask for the arms from the others. The sufficiency of the arms in the township would be no reason for refusing the licence. Whether an area is infested by dacoits or not would again be no reason because the person or the property of a person does not face the danger only from the dacoits. There are variety of the reasons for which a person would like to hold an arm with him and the best of those is the self defence. The grounds on which the application was rejected are absolutely illegal and contrary to provisions of law. The orders Annexure F & 1 are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the licensing authority/District Magistrate to decide the application afresh within three months from the date of production of this order, keeping in view the observations made by this Court in this order."
(Emphasis Supplied) 5 W.P. No.18497/2018 The underlined portion of the aforesaid judgment makes it crystal clear that the reasons of rejection are not in consonance with the mandate of Section 14 of the Arms Act."
6. In the light of the order passed by this Court in Jitendra Gupta (supra), it can be safely concluded that the reasons assigned in the impugned order are not in consonance with the requirement of Section 14 of the Arms Act.
7. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back before the Government to take a fresh decision on the pending application for grant of arms license to the petitioner by taking into account the findings given hereinabove.
8. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge Biswal Digitally signed by SHIBA NARAYAN BISWAL Date: 2018.10.05 15:46:03 +05'30' 6 W.P. No.18497/2018 7 W.P. No.18497/2018 8 W.P. No.18497/2018