I Need Judgement Copy of Allahabad HC Permitting 3 Arms

[nagarifle]

tried finding it under the title but no luck, can someone give a link to it?

many thanks

[ruger_rugged]

tried finding it under the title but no luck, can someone give a link to it?

many thanks

Dear Nagarifle,
PM me your email id and I will send u the pdf which i have downloaded from link.

[nvnrjn]

Try searching for the whole name "Sunil Shukla, Advocate" in the petitioner field. I also broadened the time frame from 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2010.
That worked for me.

[nagarifle]

thanks i got it

[perfectionist]

Latest Allahabad High Court Ruling - admonishing authorities for not giving the arms licenses to the genuine and clean applicants- "On arms licence, HC asks govt to stop behaving like British Raj"- check out the link: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/on-ar ... aj/839671/

[sa_ali]

Another victory

these litigants are the crusaders for rkba

[rajveer]

Hi ruger_rugged and other friends,
Any progress about ur additional licence, any help from the Allahabad High Court Judgement?
if possible kindly reply. Now its my turn to go for additional license and ur insight will be a great help.

Regards.

[ruger_rugged]

Hi ruger_rugged and other friends,
Any progress about ur additional licence, any help from the Allahabad High Court Judgement?
if possible kindly reply. Now its my turn to go for additional license and ur insight will be a great help.

Regards.

Dear rajveer,

My additional licence application was rejected by LA and I had to appeal to state home department. After waiting for months the home department approved it. And yes all the judgement's passed by various Hon. Courts did help me to prove my point.
It is ironic that every state interprets Arms Act at their oun leisure. So I am confused who is doin the right way? For example
In Haryana and Punjab if one has AL for one weapon (revolver/pistol/shotgun/rifle) and he/she intends to possess additional weapon, then one just needs to write a simple application on a piece of paper that they intend to do so. The LA will approve or disapprove after reviewing it. In most cases LA approves such addition licence applications. This procedure may be prevalent in other states as well.

Whereas in Maharashtra if one needs additional weapon, then he/she has to apply it like a fresh arm licence application and has to go through the police station inquiry etc etc. After months of follow up, in most of the cases the application gets rejected on grounds like "We think weapon is not needed" or "The reason given for obtaining weapon is not valid". This sound like a joke. Arms Act, 1959 and Arm Rules, 1962 do not state anywhere that an applicant has to furnish SPECIAL reasons to obtain additional weapon. And if so, then why not the same reason on which first weapon was granted not enough? Why one needs to apply for additional weapon like a first licence application? Why a police inquiry is needed again? Isn't the existing licencee's name and weapon details not present in the concerned police stations weapon register, doesn't the SHO of PS know credentials of licencees in his area? And if yes then why waste so much of man power when we have shortage of it.

goodboy_mentor and other gurus we will need your expert opinion on this.

rajveer - since you want to go for additional weapon, i would suggest talk to guys at POL 9 Mantralaya Mumbai and explain them how the procedure is flawed for additional weapon due to some ignorant babus. You can even meet under secretary and put up your valid point. you might save save yourself from going a big round about if they are convinced.

[mundaire]

IMHO, since the Arms Act is applicable uniformly throughout the Union of India and is the relevant law from which flows ALL power to regulate the sale/ purchase/ possession of Arms & Ammunition, no government deptt./ official can contravene its provisions without opening itself to legal challenge, you MUST consider filing RTI applications with the objective of getting the relevant govt. deptt. to admit what the law states. Towards this objective the following RTI questions may be considered:-

The applicant seeks answers to the following queries, answers may be provided in question/ answer format.

1) Is it true that the Arms Act 1959 is the sole Act of parliament governing the ownership/ possession/ process of acquisition of Arms & Ammunition? Is there any other Act/ law/ ordinance other than the Arms Act 1959 regulating the ownership/ possession/ acquisition of Arms & Ammunition, if so details of the same may be provided.

2) What are the relevant Section(s) of the Arms Act 1959 detailing the requirement for Arms License? Which of these Sections/ Sub-Sections place a limit on the number of Arms & Ammunition that may be owned/ possessed by a citizen at any given time?

3) Is it true that Section 3 sub-section 3 exempts "any member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognised by the Central Government using a point 22 bore rifle or air-rifle for target practice" from the provisions of Section3 sub-section 2, which is the only Section/ sub-section of the Arms Act 1959 which places a limit on the number of arms that a citizen may own/ possess at any given time? If there have been any changes to the law negating the above, the same may be made available to the applicant.

4) Is it not true that at the time of application the details provided in the application and all bona fides of the applicant are to be verified? Does any provision of the Arms Act 1959 require that these bona fides be re-verified at the time of addition of any Arm to an existing Arms License, the details of which would already have been verified? If so the relevant Section/ Sub-section of the Arms Act 1959 may be informed.

5) Is it not true that Section 13 of the Arms Act 1959 details the conditions for grant of an Arms License? Is it also not true that Section 14 of the Arms Act 1959 details the grounds of refusal of an Arms License? The applicant wishes to know which provision of Section 13 or Section 14 places conditions on grant of an Arms License which preclude such grant to an existing Arms Licensee? If there is no such provision then the applicant may be informed under which law are requests for additional arms by existing Arms Licensees turned down?

etc. etc. I take it you get the drift? The idea is to get them to state on their own official stationary that you are right and they are wrong. Once that is done, the rest follows automatically.... like the wise men said, never be afraid to ask questions....

Cheers!
Abhijeet

[rajveer]

Thank u very much ruger_rugged,
for replying . Sir my heartiest Congratulations for ur success and my SALUTE to your efforts.
Like all here in IFG I request you to kindly post few pictures of your new beauty.
Sir your inputs are of great help to me and I hope u will be there to guide me whenever I need.

Abhijeet Sir,
This time for my additional weapon , I intend to " Take The Bull By It Horns". The input from your side like the above post will definetly help me stand like a MAN with back bone.

Regards.

[goodboy_mentor]

Gentlemen, it appears we may have lost focus from the root cause of the problem and are hitting around the bush. If we try to get "answers" to the problem from the licensing authority or the appellate authority, they will simply show plenty of MHA Notifications to justify what they are doing. RTI Act 2005 is about asking for "information" as is, that is present with the public authority. Under RTI Act 2005 the public authorities are not required to create information, explain or justify the decisions/ information, or be subjected to interrogatory nature of questions.

Even this three firearm limit inserted in Arms Act 1959 by an amendment is unconstitutional. Unless the root cause of the problem is attacked, I do not see any solution to these kind of problems. What is the root cause of the problem?

a) Lack of clarity to the executive and especially the judiciary that arms are fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution of India. And Arms Act 1959 is just a regulatory law to regulate this fundamental right.

b) Over delegation of powers by the legislature to the executive under Arms Act 1959. Resulting in confusing, conflicting, illegal and unconstitutional notifications/ policies being issued periodically to the Licensing and Appellate Authorities.

c) Arms Act 1959 is violative of Article 20(3) of Constitution of India because if one possesses firearm before obtaining a license, it compels one to get self incriminated under Arms Act 1959. For those familiar with legal concepts or from legal background may read http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... 0&invol=85 Those who want to read in layman's language may read http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/R ... &issue=006

[ruger_rugged]

Rajveer - IMHO you should write RTI with POL 9 Mantralaya Mumbai asking them the questions as framed by Abhijeet and then wait and watch. If they don't answer logically which is expected then the next step should be a writ in Hon. High Court Mumbai. I think since this is going to address issues of the gun community in Mumbai and Maharashtra, we could expect their support in terms of money as well and could hire a good lawyer. Keep us posted.

[mundaire]

The proper process of utilising the power of RTI is, first file the RTI, then wait for the reply. If the reply is not forthcoming, or if the reply does not provide adequate & accurate information to the questions then you must file an appeal with the first appellate authority citing the grounds for appeal; ideally list them out point wise and make sure to outline how the answer(s) to the posed question(s) do not sufficiently and/ or accurately provide the requested information. Then wait for a response, you may be called to attended a hearing in person before the first appellate authority, in my experience the PIO is seldom present for these hearings as he/ she belongs to the same department as the first appellate authority.

If the appeal is disposed of in your favour and the PIO is directed to furnish the required information, you once again wait. If the appeal is decided in the favour of the PIO OR if even after being directed by the first appellate authority, he/ she fails to provide the information - you must appeal to the CIC. Similar to how you filed your first appeal, this appeal too must outline the entire sequence regarding your RTI application - the date on which the RTI was filed, the date on which response was received or no response was received. What all requested information was missing/ inaccurate etc.

By and large you will find the CIC rulings are in favour of citizens and not departments.

If utilised properly RTI is a powerful tool to force Government Deptt.'s to abide by the law & proper laid out procedures, removing their tendency towards arbitrariness.

If you do decide to take the RTI route, feel free to post your RTI process here and we'll try and assist as best we can. Needless to say, for it to be effective you MUST ask the right questions in the RTI.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

[goodboy_mentor]

On 18.3.2009 MHA had sent letter related to arms licensing, to all the home secretaries of state governments and union territories. I quote the sentences that are relevant to this discussion below:

It is the intention of Arms Act only bonafide persons who fulfill the conditions laid down are granted licenses for the genuine need..........Additional weapon may be allowed strictly on merits subject to a maximum of three weapons.

I hope now it becomes visible, the extent of downward slide of arms from being fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 under Constitution of India, has officially reached down to level of not only a "need", it has gone down further to "genuine need". And for additional weapons, forget about your fundamental right or the Arms Act 1959, it has become "strictly on merits". Where is the Arms Act 1959 talking about merits? When did enjoyment of fundamental rights get reduced to merits?

Also besides this letter there is the infamous letter sent by MHA on 6.4.2010, to all the home secretaries of state governments and union territories. It goes a step further downwards to reduce getting arms license to the level of "grave and imminent threat". I quote the sentences that are relevant to this discussion below:

a) Applications for grant of NPB arms licences may be considered from persons, who may face or perceive grave and imminent threat to their lives, for which the licensing authority will obtain an assessment of the threat faced by the persons from the police authorities.

b) No licence may be granted without police verification, which will include report on (i) antecedents of the applicant, (ii) assessment of the threat, (iii) capability of the applicant to handle arms, and (iv) any other information which the police authority might consider relevant for the grant or refusal of licence. Steps are being taken to delete the proviso to Sec. 13(2A) of the Arms Act, 1959.

Where is the Arms Act 1959 talking about "grave and imminent threat"? When did enjoyment of fundamental rights became subject to "grave and imminent threat"? Hope it answers the question that why the entire procedure is being followed again for issuing second or third arms license. What is the solution to all this official nonsense?