Allahabad High Court
Ashok Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 January, 2020
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20581 of 2016 Petitioner :- Ashok Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Nath Tripathi,Ashish Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
1. Petitioner was appointed in Border Security Force on 11.9.1991. While in service, he was posted in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and for his safety and security a firearm licence was issued to him by the District Magistrate, Doda (Jammu & Kashmir) on 7.9.2005. The area of operation for the firearm licence is alleged to have been extended by the Home Department of State of Jammu & Kashmir on 28.4.2006. The firearm licence was subsequently renewed from time to time.
2. Petitioner claims to have purchased a double barrel gun bearing no. 22052 on the basis of licence granted by the competent authority on 7.9.2005. The licence remained inforce and the petitioner ultimately superannuated on 31.7.2013. The certificate of discharge, dated 31st July, 2013, in that regard is annexed as Annexure 1 and the same is not disputed. Petitioner retired from the post of Head Constable and his native place is District Fatehpur in the State of U.P. and after superannuation he has settled there. Petitioner, consequently made an application before the District Magistrate, Fatehpur for his firearm licence to be registered at Fatehpur, as the petitioner has shifted and settled at Fatehpur. It is this application, which has been rejected by the District Magistrate on 26.10.2015. The reason assigned in the order is that this Court in Writ Petition No. 6392 of 1997 (Hardayal Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others) on 24.2.1997 has held that a firearm licence issued by the authority in the State of Jammu & Kashmir cannot be extended at Fatehpur. Another judgment in Writ Petition No. 13559 of 2006 (Mahesh Chandra Trivedi Vs. State of U.P. and another), decided on 29.4.2010 is also relied upon for such purposes. Accordingly, petitioner's application for his firearm licence to be extended and registered in Fatehpur has been rejected, which is challenged in this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is an Ex-Officer of the Paramilitary Force and the firearm licence issued to him while he was in service of the Country at Jammu & Kashmir. It is stated that the firearm was purchased by the petitioner for his own security as he was serving the Union of India. It is contended that rejection of petitioner's application in the facts and circumstances is wholly arbitrary, inasmuch as, the petitioner would have to surrender his firearm itself, in such circumstances. It is also contended that Rule 17 of the Arms Rules, 2016 clearly contemplates registration of licence with an outside licensing authority and change of address with existing licensing authority. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of this Court in Sant Ram Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2017 SC Online All 1164.
4. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand places reliance upon the judgments, which have been referred to in the order of the District Magistrate, refusing to register petitioner's licence at Fatehpur. Rule 17 of the Arms Rules, 2016 is relevant for the present purposes and is reproduced hereinafter:-
"Rule 17. Registration of licence with an outside licensing authority and change of address with existing licensing authority.─ (1) If a person who holds a licence in Form III changes his place of residence, permanently, or temporarily for a period of more than six months, and carries with him the arms covered by the licence, to a place falling, other than within the jurisdiction of the existing licensing authority indicated in the licence, he shall, immediately before the expiry of a period of six months, send intimation about such change to the licensing authority of the place of his new residence and shall on demand, forthwith produce the licence and the arm or arms to the new licensing authority by applying in Form B-1 and indicating there in the particulars of his new residence.
(2) The licensing authority of the new place of residence of the licensee on receiving an application in Form B-1 under sub-rule (1), shall within a period of fifteen days, register the licensee in the NDAL system whereby the UIN of the licensee shall stand activated and transferred to its jurisdiction and deactivated from the records of the original licensing authority or the last renewing authority as the case may be and thereupon a new licence book shall be issued to the licensee and such new authority shall be the licensing or the renewing authority in relation to the said licence.
(3) Where the licensee changes his permanent place of residence within the jurisdiction of the existing licensing authority, he shall forthwith inform the same to the licensing authority with the proof of his new place of residence and if such change has resulted in change of jurisdiction of police station, along with information of the police station of his new place of residence and the licensing authority shall within a period of fifteen days, register the change of residence of the licensee in the NDAL system whereby the UIN of the licensee shall stand activated under the new police station and de-activated from that of the last police station."
5. By virtue of Rule 17, the procedure has been simplified and it is the licensing authority of the place of new residence of the licensee, to whom an application is required to be made for extension of the licence to the territory in which the new residence of the licensee is situate.
6. The petitioner admittedly was issued licence by a competent authority in the State of Jammu & Kashmir as he was in the service of Union of India being an employee of the Border Security Force. Having retired from the active service, petitioner has now settled at District Fatehpur. The petitioner, therefore, would clearly be entitled to make an application to the licensing authority at Fatehpur for his firearm licence to be registered at the place where he is now residing and such application would have to be dealt with in terms of Rule 17 of the Arms Rules, 2016. The rejection of petitioner's claim cannot be sustained in view of the provisions now introduced in Rule 17. So far as the judgment of this Court in Hardayal Ram (supra) is concerned, the facts are clearly distinguishable in the present case. In the facts of the present case, the firearm licence had already been renewed by the competent authority which was to remain effective till 7.9.2017. The petitioner only wanted endorsement to be made by the licensing authority at Fatehpur, since he had started residing at Fatehpur. It was not a case of renewal of firearm licence as in the case in Hardayal Ram (supra) and Mahesh Chandra Trivedi (supra), which have been referred to in the order impugned. Both the cases related to renewal of firearm licence whereas in the facts of the present case its a case of endorsement when the licensee changes his place of residence. The two judgments, therefore, were clearly distinguishable and had no applicability in the facts of the present case. Rule 17 of the Rules of 2016 otherwise contemplate that consequent upon change of the address a licensee can make an application before the competent authority. Rule 17 of the Rules of 2016 otherwise correspondance to the earlier Rule 62 of the Arms Rules, 1962. The exigency occurring in the present case was to be dealt with by virtue of the then Rule 62 of the Arms Rules, 1962, which is pari materia with the Rule 17 of the Rules of 2016 and its applicability has not been examined by the District Magistrate concerned.
7. Consequently, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 26.10.2015, passed by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, stands quashed. The application of the petitioner for change of his residence would be reconsidered by the District Magistrate in terms of the applicable rules, within a period of two months, from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Any further application filed for renewal shall also be dealt with as per law. The ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Sant Ram Pandey (supra) shall be kept in mind by the District Magistrate, while taking a fresh decision.
Order Date :- 22.1.2020 Ranjeet Sahu