Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (2.72 seconds)Section 14 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
Section 3 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Chhotelal Pachori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2019
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that rejection of his
application on the ground that there was no threat to the appellant
from any person or group of persons, is erroneous. He placed reliance
on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of
Chhotelal Pachori Vs. State of M.P. and Others1 and submits that
there is no necessity to explain a threat to his life or security.
The Arms Rules, 1962
Amit Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2018
In the case of Amit Agarwal v. State of M.P. & Ors.2 -, the
application for grant of arms license was declined by the State
Government on the ground that there was no threat perception from
any person or group of persons. The State Government further
observed that the applicant was not eligible person in terms of the
executive instructions issued by the State Government dated
26.3.2011.
Smt.Pratibha Chauhan vs State Of M.P. on 1 December, 2015
A co-ordinate bench of this Hon'ble Court, took cognizance
of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Pratibha Chouhan & Ors. v.
State of M.P. & Ors3. wherein it was held that the State Government
was competent to issue executive instructions for issuing or renewing
arms license which are not contrary to the Arms Act, 1962 and the
Rules made thereunder. This court in Amit Agarwal 2 referred to
executive instructions dated 26.3.2011 whereby it was decided to
specify the categories of persons to whom the arms license could be
granted. Clause 2.2 of these executive instructions provided that in
respect of all categories of persons, the license shall be granted on the
basis of threat perception. This Court held, while pacing reliance on
the aforesaid Full Bench decision held that the executive instructions
2
WA 570 of 2017
3
2013(3) MPLJ 219
9
dated 26.3.2011 are valid and permissible. It was held that the threat
perception perceived by the applicant alone is not relevant. The
licensing authority has to take into consideration public peace and
safety. A writ could does not sit in appeal over the discretion exercised
by the licensing authority. Unless the applicant is able to demonstrate
that he has threat from a person or group of persons, he has no vested
right to seek grant of arms license. The decision of the State
Government declining the grant of arms license on the ground of
absence of threat perception was, therefore, affirmed.