Punjab-Haryana High Court
Milap Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 6 May, 2014
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
C.W.P. No. 2276 of 2012 [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 2276 of 2012
Date of Decision:06.05.2014
Milap Singh ............................................. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ................... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?: Yes.
Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. A.K.Bansal, Advocate for UOI.
Mr. K.C.Bhatia, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
...
RITU BAHRI, J.
The petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 8.4.2011 (Annexure P1) and letter dated 2.5.2011 (Annexure P2) on the ground that the weapon of the petitioner does not fall within the definition of "prohibited arms".
The petitioner owns a .30 carbine rifle (semi- automatic) and he was granted an Arms Licence vide No. 4267/NL/DMR. The Director General of Police (respondent Kaur Rupinder 2014.05.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 2276 of 2012 [ 2 ] No.3) vide letter dated 2.5.2011 had directed the petitioner to surrender his licence and deposit such arms and ammunition as specified in the order with the nearest police station. Pursuant to the letter written by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi dated 8.4.2011 (Annexure P1) the number of the licence of the petitioner is shown at Sr. No. 228. The petitioner deposited his weapons with the police station Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar on 4.5.2011 and a receipt was issued by the authorities in this behalf (Annexure P3). Petitioner made an application under the RTI Act on 2.5.2011 for opinion whether .30 carbine Rifle (semi-automatic) was a prohibited weapon (Annexure P4). Vide reply dated 18.5.2011 (Annexure P5) the Ministry of Home Affairs, Arms Section, has informed the petitioner that his weapon was covered under the definition of "prohibited arms". However, there was no notification in this regard issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per Section 2(1) (i) of the Arms Act, 1959 the petitioner's weapon .30 carbine Rifle (semi-automatic) is not covered under the definition of "prohibited arms" as under Section 2 (1)(i) of the Act, the definition of "prohibited arms" is as under:-
"(i) firearms so designed or adapted that, if Kaur Rupinder 2014.05.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 2276 of 2012 [ 3 ] pressure is applied to the trigger, missiles continued to be discharged until pressure is removed from the trigger or the magazine containing the missiles is empty ."
The weapon .30 carbine Rifle with the petitioner is a semi automatic weapon which has to be re-triggered and had to be bolted every time a short had to be fired. As per the definition of prohibited arms, it is so designed that if pressure was applied to the trigger missiles continue to discharge until pressure was removed from the trigger. Thus, there is a basic distinction in operating the weapon i.e. .30 carbine Rifle. Moreover, under the Arms Act the prohibited weapon is to be notified by the Central Government.
A Full Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Swaran Singh (Annexure P6) has considered in detail the definition of a prohibited weapon under the Arms Act and held that unless there is a notification issued by the Central Government in the official gazettee it cannot be described as a 'prohibited weapon'. The Division Bench was considering with regard to .303" rifle as a prohibited arm in terms of Arms Act. It was held that in the absence of a notification in the official gazettee as per Schedule 2 of the Arms Act read with the definition of 'Prohibited Arms' in Section 2(1) (i) the weapon could not be treated as the one Kaur Rupinder 2014.05.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 2276 of 2012 [ 4 ] prohibited under the Act.
In the written statement filed by respondents No. 2 to 4, the stand of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is that the petitioner had obtained Arms Licence No. 4267/NL/DMR from the office of District Magistrate, Dimapur (Nagaland). This weapon is mentioned at Sr. No. 228 in the list of Licences revoked vide order dated 8.4.2011 (Annexure P1). The order of the Central Government is as per Section 17 (9) and (10) of the Arms Act and the petitioner deposited the said arms with the respondents after suspension/revocation of the licence. The Government of India can revoke the licence of any person even if the weapon in his possession is prohibited or not prohibited. Petitioner had made a request on 11.7.2001 for renewal of his .30 carbine Rifle licence No. 4267-NL/DMR (Nagaland) which was valid upto 31.12.2001. He has submitted his documents along with the application. The photocopy of the licence was sent to District Magistrate, Dimapur (Nagaland) for verification vide letter No. 1625 dated 19.10.2001 but no opinion was received from the Issuing Authority despite reminders dated 28.11.2001, 11.1.2002, 22.2.2002 and 15.4.2002. Petitioner's licence was renewed provisionally with effect from 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002 subject to verification by the District Magistrate, Dimapur (Nagaland). His licence was subsequently renewed from 4.2.2003 to 31.12.2005 without getting any information Kaur Rupinder 2014.05.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 2276 of 2012 [ 5 ] from Licencing Authority, Dimapur (Nagaland). Petitioner made another request for renewal of his licence on 16.12.2005 to District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar. Thereafter, vide letter dated 27.6.2005 the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, informed all the District Magistrates not to allow any renewal of licence originally issued from Nagaland without verification and genuineness of the licence. A request was made again for verification on behalf of the petitioner vide Memo No. 740 dated 18.5.2006 and reminder vide memo No. 773 dated 26.5.2006. An information was received from the Additional Deputy Commissioner office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur (Nagaland) vide letter dated 28.4.2006 informing that the Arms Licence in respect of the petitioner has no record in their office. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.8.2006 and he was directed to deposit his weapon i.e. .30 rifle to the S.H.O. of nearest police station. The petitioner gave his reply to the Show Cause Notice on 23.11.2006. In the meantime, respondent No.2 i.e. Financial Commissioner, Home Affairs informed vide letter dated 25.10.2006 that Ministry of Home Affairs had informed all the States that Government of Nagaland has already imposed a ban in the state on issuing of Arms Licence on all categories of weapons since March 1990. As per the reply given to the Kaur Rupinder 2014.05.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 2276 of 2012 [ 6 ] Show Cause Notice by the petitioner the Arms Licence had been issued in the year 1998. Hence, the petitioner's licence was not renewed. Apart from this, as per letter dated 8.4.2011 (Annexure P1) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the Central Government had revoked 350 Arms Licences issued by various Districts of Nagaland State. The petitioner had obtained Arms Licence No. 4267-NL/DMR (Nagaland) from the office of District Magistrate, Dimapur (Nagaland) which was mentioned at Sr. No. 228 of the list of licences revoked vide Annexure P1. Hence, in view of Annexure P1 and as per the information circulated by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 25.10.2006 that Government of Nagaland has imposed a ban to issue Arms Licence since March 1990 the petitioner has no case to get his Arms Licence renewed.
In the written statement filed by respondent No.1, Schedule-I has been annexed as Annexure R2 in which the semi automatic firearms and other than those included in categories 1(c) and III(a) are categorized as under category 1(b). The petitioner is carrying a .30 rifle which is a semi- automatic firearm and the authority to issue licences for these weapons which fall in category 1(b) and 1(c) has been withdrawn from the State Governments vide notification dated 8.8.1987. The power to issue licence for such category of weapons has been vested with the Central Government Kaur Rupinder 2014.05.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 2276 of 2012 [ 7 ] since 1987. Therefore, the licence issued to the petitioner by the Nagaland Government in the year 1998 carries no weight. The petitioner was required to make an application after August 1987 to the Central Government. In view of the above, notification No. V-11012/1/86-Arms dated 8.8.1987 does not have any vested right to get his Arms Licence renewed even if no notification has been issued by the Central Government declaring the said weapon to be a prohibitory Arm. The essential powers to issue Arms Licence with effect from 1987 vests with the Central Government. The petitioner's .30 rifle is a semi-automatic weapon and is covered under Category 1(b) and 1(c) of the Schedule-I (Annexure R2). The orders dated 8.4.2001 (Annexure P1) had been issued by the Central Government while exercising the powers under Section 17(9 and (10) of the Arms Act, 1959 (Annexure R1).
After going through the facts and documents placed on record the question for consideration before this Court is not whether the .30 carbine rifle (semi-automatic) falls under the category of "prohibited arms" as per Full Bench judgment (Annexure P6) but the question for consideration is that once the Central Government had withdrawn the powers in August l1987 to issue licence for the said semi-automatic rifles to the State Government, could the State of Nagaland issue Arms Licence to the Kaur Rupinder 2014.05.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 2276 of 2012 [ 8 ] petitioner in the year 1998? The answer would be 'No'. This fact is further fortified by the information circulated by respondent No.2 i.e. Financial Commissioner, Home Affairs on 25.10.2006 that the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India had informed all the States that the Govt. of Nagaland has already imposed ban in the State on issue of Arms Licence of all categories of weapons since March 1990. In view of the information given by Ministry of Home Affairs to respondent No.2, the Arms Licence of the petitioner was not renewed as the licence had been issued to him by the Nagaland Government in the year 1998 despite the ban imposed in 1990 on issue of Arms Licence of all categories of weapons. In the absence of any information and any verification given to respondents No. 2 to 4 from the State of Nagaland, the Arms Licence of the petitioner was renewed initially with effect from 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002 and subsequently upto 31.12.2005. The renewal was in the absence of verification by the State Government of Nagaland or subject to verification by District Magistrate, Dimapur (Nagaland). Subsequently, on an information given by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 25.10.2006 that there was a ban imposed on Government of Nagaland to issue Arms Licence to all caterogy of weapons since March 1990 the petitioner's licence was not renewed.
Hence, keeping in view the above facts as per Kaur Rupinder 2014.05.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 2276 of 2012 [ 9 ] Annexure R2 the weapon of the petitioner falls under category 1(b) and 1(c). The Government of India has the sole power to issue licence for such categories of weapons since 1987. No case is made out to quash the order dated 8.4.2011 (Annexure P1) and order dated 2.5.2011 (Annexure P2).
The writ petition is dismissed.
( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE 06.05.2014 rupi Kaur Rupinder 2014.05.07 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh