Cout Can't Interfere With Administration's Decision Refusing Firearms License Except In Extraordinary Circumstances: Rajasthan High Court

The present petitioner had raised grievance regarding the arms license.

The court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days and asked the respective District Magistrate to consider the representation afresh by passing speaking orders, while keeping in mind the existing policy of the State.

Justice Vijay Bishnoi, observed,

"This Court is of the opinion that any interference in rejection of grant of fresh application/ refusal/ renewal of license for firearms is not warranted except when extraordinary circumstances are pointed out. Looking into the submission made by learned counsel for the parties that it would be suffice if their rights are redetermined by the respondents, while keeping into consideration the judgment rendered in Khem Singh (supra), the same is accepted."

In Khem Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the High Court had said that mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the license holder is not sufficient for cancelling the license. The court had added that a license can be revoked u/s.17 (3) of the Arms Act, if the licensing authority deem it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety. The court had also noted that in absence of any finding that cancellation was necessary for public peace or public safety, such an order is liable to be quashed.

The petitioner was aggrieved by inaction and unjustified delay in issuance of arms license/ no opportunity of hearing given. It was submitted that though a case was pending against him, the same pertained to gambling and thereby did not impact public safety.

Further, the petitioner's counsel submitted that there is a statutory provision for persons to apply and acquire a firearm license, and thus, the respondents ought to maintain maximum transparency, while passing the orders, whereas the impugned orders have been passed without making any individual consideration of the relevant criteria.

The counsel for the respondents submits that there is no absolute right of any person to acquire an arms license and the respondents have every right to objectively decide each case, while taking into consideration the past record of the person seeking such license as well as the pendency of proceedings, if any.

Adv. Lakshya Singh Udawat appeared for the petitioner while Dy. G.C. Ramdayal Choudhary and Adv. Ramdayal Choudhary appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: Bhan Singh v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 195