Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Goverdhan Singh Parihar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 November, 2021
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4452/2019
Goverdhan Singh Parihar S/o Bharat Singh Parihar, Aged About
40 Years, Date Of Birth- 01.11.1978, Caste- Rajput, R/o Near
Narsigh Sagar Talab, Sarvodya Basti, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs (Govt. Of Rajasthan)
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Bikaner, District Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
3. The Superintendent Of Police, District - Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7337/2014
Pat Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj. And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5953/2016
Kewal Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8881/2016
Kanti Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15020/2018
Jarnail Singh S/o Labh Singh, Aged About 68 Years, B/c Jat Sikh
R/o 2-G-5, Sadbhawna Nagar, Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 08:12:05 PM)
(2 of 8) [CW-4452/2019]
2. Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner.
3. Collector And District Magistrate, Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3372/2019
Brij Lal S/o Shri Chetram, Aged About 51 Years, By Caste Jat,
Resident Of Jakhdawali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Division Bikaner.
3. The District Collector - Cum - District Magistrate,
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4244/2019
Sher Khan S/o Kayamdin, Aged About 58 Years, Village Jawandh
Juni, P.s. Lathi, District - Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
2. District Magistrat, Jailsamer, Rajasthan.
3. Collector, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
4. Additional District Magistrate, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4268/2019
Shri Shahviriyam S/o Shri Kasam Ali, Aged About 52 Years, By
Caste Muslim, R/o Chak 03 K.s.p. Police Station Tibbi Tehsil Tibbi,
District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector And District Magistrate, Hanumangarh
District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
3. Superintending Of Police, Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
4. Station House Officer, Police Station, Tibbi Tehsil Tibbi,
District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18380/2019
Ranjeet Kumar
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 08:12:05 PM)
(3 of 8) [CW-4452/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj. And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13587/2018
Aarif Mohammed Silawat
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj. And Ors.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajak Khan Haider
Mr. S.D. Goswami
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Bohra
Mr. Lokesh Mathur
Dr. RDSS Kharlia
Mr. Shardul Singh
Mr. Mohammed Iqbal
Mr. Vijay Jain
Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore
Ms. Varsha Bissa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramdayal Choudhary, Dy.GC.
Mr. Harshit Bhurarni
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
10/11/2021
In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant
caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court,
for the safety of all concerned.
The present petitioners have a common grievance regarding
the arms license.
Learned counsels for the present petitioners have laid the
grievances with regard to matters relating to licenses of firearms
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 08:12:05 PM)
(4 of 8) [CW-4452/2019]
under the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter "the Act of 1959"), before
the Court, viz. inaction and unjustified delay in issuance of arms
license / no opportunity of hearing given and despite pendency of
only one criminal case / rejected without cause or speaking
order / renewal denied despite acquittal in criminal cases /
renewal denied despite pending criminal case related to gambling
and thereby not impacting public safety / no transfer to legal heir
despite surrender of old license / no grant or refusal of application
for license and inordinate delay, despite prescribed statutory time
period of 60 days asunder Schedule V, of the Arms Rules, 2016
("the 2016 Rules").
Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that there
is a statutory provision for persons to apply and acquire a firearm
license, and thus, the respondents ought to maintain maximum
transparency, while passing the orders, whereas the impugned
orders have been passed without making any individual
consideration of the relevant criteria.
Learned counsel for the respondents submit that there is no
absolute right of any person to acquire an arms license and the
respondents have every right to objectively decide each case,
while taking into consideration the past record of the person
seeking such license as well as the pendency of proceedings, if
any.
Learned counsels for the petitioners at this stage, submit
that it would be sufficient if the respondents are directed to pass
fresh orders on the petitioners' cases individually, while keeping in
the view the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this
Hon'ble Court in Khem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 08:12:05 PM)
(5 of 8) [CW-4452/2019]
reported in 2005 (2) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 907. This Court's attention
is drawn to Para 5 of Khem Singh (supra) -
"Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against
the license holder is not sufficient for cancelling the
license. A license can be revoked u/s.17 (3) if the
licensing authority deem it necessary for the security
of public peace or public safety. In absence of any
finding that cancellation was necessary for public
peace or public safety, such an order is liable to be
quashed."
Learned counsels for the petitioners also drew the attention
of this Court towards two orders passed in Sarjeet Singh Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. SB Civil WP No. 110/2011 and
Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. SB Civil WP No.
5681/2005 this Court passed in 2014, and 2016 respectively.
In Sarjeet Singh (supra), the Court observed the following -
"There remains no quarrel in the legal position
that pendency of a criminal case cannot be cited as a
ground for cancellation / suspension of Arms License
under Section 17 of the Arms Act 1959 (for short 'the
Act of 1959'). The Division Bench of this Court in
Khem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. has held
that pendency of criminal case against an incumbent
is not a ground of cancellation of Arms License under
Section 17(3) (B) of the Act of 1959. The Court has
further held that in absence of any finding that
cancellation was necessary for public safety such
order cannot be sustained."
Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
(Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 08:12:05 PM)
(6 of 8) [CW-4452/2019]
Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 reads as under:
17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.--
(1) The licensing authority may vary the conditions subject
to which a licence has been granted except such of them
as have been prescribed and may for that purpose require
the licence-holder by notice in writing to deliver-up the
licence to it within such time as may be specified in the
notice.
(2) The licensing authority may, on the application of the
holder of a licence, also vary the conditions of the licence
except such of them as have been prescribed.
(3) The licensing authority may by order in writing suspend
a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence
--
(a) if the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the licence is 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 is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or
(b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or
(c) if the licence was obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the licence or any other person on his behalf at the time of applying for it; or
(d) if any of the conditions of the licence has been contravened; or
(e) if the holder of the licence has failed to comply with a notice under sub-section (1) requiring him to deliver-up the licence.
(4) The licensing authority may also revoke a licence on the application of the holder thereof.
(5) Where the licensing authority makes an order varying a licence under sub-section (1) or an order suspending or revoking a licence under sub-section (3), it shall record in writing the reasons therefor and furnish to the holder of (Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 08:12:05 PM) (7 of 8) [CW-4452/2019] the licence 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.
(6) The authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate may by order in writing suspend or revoke a licence on any ground on which it may be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority; and the foregoing provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the suspension or revocation of a licence by such authority.
(7) A court convicting the holder of a licence of any offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder may also suspend or revoke the licence: Provided that if the conviction is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the suspension or revocation shall become void. (8) An order of suspension or revocation under sub-section (7) may also be made by an appellate court or by the High Court when exercising its powers of revision. (9) The Central Government may, by order in the Official Gazette, suspend or revoke or direct any licensing authority to suspend or revoke all or any licences granted under this Act throughout India or any part thereof. (10) On the suspension or revocation of a licence under this section the holder thereof shall without delay surrender the licence to the authority by whom it has been suspended or revoked or to such other authority as may be specified in this behalf in the order of suspension or revocation."
This Court is of the opinion that any interference in rejection of grant of fresh application / refusal / renewal of license for firearms is not warranted except when extraordinary circumstances are pointed out.
Looking into the submission made by learned counsel for the parties that it would be suffice if their rights are redetermined by (Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 08:12:05 PM) (8 of 8) [CW-4452/2019] the respondents, while keeping into consideration the judgment rendered in Khem Singh (supra), the same is accepted.
Thus, in the given circumstances, the present petitions are disposed of, while directing that each of the petitioners shall file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days from the date of obtaining the certified copy of this order and each representation shall be considered afresh by the respective District Magistrate by passing speaking orders, while keeping in mind the relevant aforementioned judgments, the existing policy of the State, strictly in accordance with law. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
107-110, 112-115, 120, C-1 skant/zeeshan (Downloaded on 17/11/2021 at 08:12:05 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)