Licensing Authority Can’t Deny Arms Licence Merely On The Ground That Applicant Doesn’t Possess Sufficient Property: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

The Bombay High Court has held that a licensing authority cannot refuse arms license to a person merely on the ground that such person does not own sufficient property.

Justice KL Waldane of the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held the same under Section 14(2) of the Arms Act, 1959 while hearing a criminal writ petition filed by one Ashok Patil who claimed that there is a threat to his life by anti-social elements.

Case Background

The petitioner is a stringer of a local news channel in Jalgaon district. He owns land in Jalgaon district as well as Nandubar district. According to the petitioner, he became a successful agriculturist and businessman within a short span of time, therefore, many people from the area have a grudge against him and his family, and there was threat to his life from anti-social elements.

Pursuant to this, he also filed an FIR against certain persons for offences punishable under sections 384, 385 and 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Then he filed an application for an arms licence.

The Collector, Jalgaon district, called for a report from the police as well as revenue officers after hearing the petitioner and thereafter rejected the petitioner’s application on three grounds:

(i)There was no threat to the life of the petitioner or his family members

(ii) The yearly income of the petitioner for the year 2012-2013 was only Rs. 4,11,942; and

(iii) There are so many businessmen in the district and if the arms licences were to be issued to each and every businessman, then the number of arms licence holders will increase.

The Divisional Commissioner, Nasik, upheld the order passed by the district collector and dismissed the petitioner’s application in an order dated April 27, 2016.

Judgement

Petitioner’s counsel Rajendra Deshmukh argued that the grounds for rejection of the petitioner’s application are not contemplated under Section 14 of the Arms Act and hence the said order is liable to be quashed.

The court noted that the Circle Officer and the Police Inspector of Parola police station had made enquiry in reference to the various points and both of them had consistently recommended issuance of arms licence in favour of the petitioner. In spite of the favourable report, the concerned Superintendent of Police has not recommended for arms licence.

As for the law, Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 states: Notwithstanding anything in section 13, licensing authority shall refuse to grant

1. a) a license under section 3, section 4, or section 5 where such license is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition

(b) a license in any other case under Chapter II,(i) where such license is required by a person whom then          licensing authority has reason to believe(1) to be 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(2) to be of unsound mind, or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a license under this Act, or (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such license.

2.The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any license to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property.

Thus, the order dated April 27, 2016 was quashed and set aside and the District Collector, Jalgaon, was directed to issue a licence in favour of the petitioner within 30 days.

Read the Judgment Here