Arms License Can't Be Suspended On Mere Apprehension Of Misuse: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that suspending a person's arms license on bald apprehension of possible misuse is not sustainable. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 324]Noting that the licensing authority failed to record reasoned satisfaction for suspending the license, the bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed;"The competent authority shall record its independent and reasoned satisfaction...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that suspending a person's arms license on bald apprehension of possible misuse is not sustainable. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 324]
Noting that the licensing authority failed to record reasoned satisfaction for suspending the license, the bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed;
"The competent authority shall record its independent and reasoned satisfaction in accordance with the requirements of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, and shall not proceed merely on the basis of registration or pendency of a criminal case or on a bald apprehension of possible misuse of the licensed firearm".
A petition was filed challenging the order of the Collector of Datia passed on April 13, 2026, wherein the petitioner's arms license was suspended or cancelled on the basis of certain criminal cases registered against him.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without proper adjudication and without recording the requisite satisfaction under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act. The counsel further contended that the authority has proceeded merely on the basis of registration of criminal cases and apprehension of possible misuse of licensed firearm without recording how continuation of arms license would be prejudicial to public peace or safety.
The court noted that the impugned order was passed in total derogation of Section 17 of the Arms Act, which governs the variation, suspension, and revocation of licences. The said provision also mandates that the authority has to make an order in writing to suspend a licence.
The bench further noted that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the
The bench, relying on the case of Padam Chanda delivered on July 7, 2026, observed that the only actions which have the tendency to disturb public peace and endanger public safety would fall within the ambit of Section 17(3)(b) of the Act, which governs suspending a license through an order in writing.
In the present case, the court noted that the licensing authority failed to record any findings regarding maintenance of public peace and safety. Therefore, the court remanded the matter back to the Collector of Datia for fresh consideration.
The bench further directed, "While undertaking fresh consideration, respondent No.2 shall afford the petitioner a due and effective opportunity of hearing and shall consider the entire relevant material, including the status and nature of the criminal cases relied upon against the petitioner, the factum of their disposal, if any, the conduct of the petitioner after grant of the arms licence, and the existence or otherwise of any material having a bearing upon public peace or public safety".
Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Jandel Singh Ravat v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-33062-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 324
For Petitioner: Advocate Lokendra Sharivastava
For State: Government Advocate Monica Mishra