Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Pratibha Chauhan vs State Of M.P. on 1 December, 2015
WP-3205-2010
(SMT.PRATIBHA CHAUHAN Vs STATE OF M.P. )
01-12-2015
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
Writ Petition No.3205/2010.
Smt. Pratibha Chauhan
Vs/-
The State of M.P. And Others.
===========================================
===========
For the petitioner: Mr.N.K.Gupta Sr.Advocate with Shri Ravi Gupta
Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Kamal Jain, Government
Advocate
===========================================
=======
Present: Honâble Mr.Justice Alok Aradhe
ORDER
(01/12/2015) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the State Government by which, it has cancelled the application for renewal filed by the petitioner for renewal of the Arms Dealers License.
The facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner, an arms dealer, who filed an application for grant of renewal of Arms Dealers License for the year 2009 i.e. from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2009 in the month of July, 2008. However, the application submitted by the petitioner was kept pending and the same was decided by an order dated 3.10.2009 by which, Arms Dealers License of the petitioner was renewed from the period 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2009. The petitioner on account of pendency of her application, could not carry on her business for a period from 1.1.2009 to 3.10.2009. After renewal, District Magistrate by order dated 12.11.2009 directed all Arms Dealers License holders not to sell any arms and ammunitions till 18.12.2009. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for grant of renewal of Arms License for the year 2010 in the month of October, 2010. The State Government vide order dated 4.5.2010 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, rejected the application for renewal on the ground that the petitioner in the year 2009 did not sell required minimum number of arms and ammunitions. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has visited this court.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that issue whether the State Government by way of an executive instruction can prescribe number of arms and ammunition which are required to be sold by an arms dealer, has already been answered by a Full Bench of this Court in affirmative in the case of petitioner herself Smt. Pratibha Chauhan Vs. State of M.P. And Another 2013 Volume 3 MPLJ 219 and it has been held that it is open to the State Government to prescribe the number of arms and ammunition which an arms dealer is required to sell in a particular year by an executive instruction. Therefore, the case of the petitioner for renewal of Arms Dealers License deserves to be considered on it's own merit by the State Government keeping in view the date on which, the license of the petitioner was renewed and for the period for which, the petitioner was directed to carry on the business. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has submitted that the suitable decision in this regard shall be taken by the competent authority.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the impugned order dated 4.5.2010 is hereby quashed. It is directed that in case the petitioner files a fresh application for grant of renewal of Arms Dealers License for the year 2016-17 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today before the competent authority of the State Government, the Competent authority shall decide the application for renewal of the Arms Dealers License expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said application bearing in mind the date on which, the Arms Dealers License of the petitioner was renewed previously and for the period for which, the petitioner was allowed to carry on the business.
Needless to state that the competent authority while dealing with the application for renewal of Arms Dealers License shall also bear in mind that this writ petition was pending before this court for past about five years.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be placed in the file of all connected cases listed today.
() JUDGE