3 weapons on 1 license or 1 weapon each on 3 licenses?

[Katana]

I applied for a new license for a shotgun(breach loading DBBL gun, in sarkari lingo) on 26th. May to my district Collector. I already have a license for a rifle. The mandate for processing this application is 70 days. Within about a month or so the local Mamlatdar (Tehsildar) and Police Inspector along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police had cleared the application papers from their end. The interview with the Collector was scheduled for 8th. August.

I presented myself at the Collector's office on the appointed date and was told that he was out on some work and that the interview would have to be rescheduled. I asked for the clerk to make the necessary notations about the rescheduling. Meanwhile, this gent who has been in licensing branch comes along and says '"we shall not give you the license. You already have one. Please cancel your application". That pretty much pissed me off and I gave him a bit of a mouthful.

Now, the conjecture is that this clerk has been around for donkeys years in this branch. I have seen 4 Collectors change but this guy remains, so it is probable that he maybe be negatively guiding the Collectors and the Additional District Magistrate in their decision making.

However, since the new date for the interview is 22nd. of this month, I would like to go armed with the necessary text from the Arms Manual specifying whether more that one license is permissible per person, provided it does not exceed 3 weapons. I'm discounting the 4th. club weapon/ license.

The closest I found was Section 52(Form of Licences), clause (2), subclause(i) of the Arms Rules.

Would appreciate if anyone could guide me to the relevant sections of Arms Rules or any judicial comments, even if they are quasi judicial, towards this effect.

[goodboy_mentor]

You may refer this judgment http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 89#p113930

[Katana]

Thank you. I did see it. I even saw the link to the Allahabad High Court.

[Katana]

I'm trying to get a copy of this judgement. Somehow the Allahabad High Court web site does not reflect it, or I maybe be missing it.

- Thu Oct 07, 2010 2:31 pm --

AFR
Court no. 7
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58293 of 2008
Sunil Shukla, Advocate
Vs.
State of U.P. and others
HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Vivek Misra and the
learned Standing Counsel.
This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to consider and decide the application filed by
the petitioner for grant of licence of revolver/pistol. Time was granted to the
learned counsel for the respondents for filing counter affidavit. With the
counter affidavit a document dated 1.12.2008 has been field, which is an
order by which the application for grant of pistol licence has been rejected
on the ground that the petitioner is already having a DBBL 12 bore gun
licence which was granted to the petitioner in the year 2004. The ground
taken in the said order is that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact as to
what are the reasons for having more than one fire arms and why he needs
another licence of the pistol.
Sri Vivek Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under
the Act there is no bar to have more than one licence in case it is necessary.
Petitioner is having a huge property and, therefore, for the security for
himself, he wants to have a licence of revolver. A 12 bore gun cannot be
easily carried away from one place to another. The respondents have not
rejected the application on the ground of concealment of any fact. Even
nothing is mentioned against the petitioner to show that the petitioner has
ever misused the arm licence. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the order itself is bad and against the provisions of
law. He has relied upon a judgement of this Court reported in 1999 ACJ
2
Page 1439 Dr. Sardar Ahmad Khan Vs. District Magistrate, Kanpur
Nagar, Kanpur. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that a bare reading of Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the Act
makes it clear that any person is entitled to acquire or possess three fire arms.
Section 3 of the Act does not provide that for acquiring a licence for a second
arm, the applicant has to disclose some special reason. In such circumstances,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been
passed only to reject the claim of the petitioner and that too without any
reason.
A counter affidavit has been filed. In para 9 of the counter affidavit it
has been stated that it is true that three arm licences can be granted to a person
under the Arms Act but before issuing the licence it is necessary to be seen the
actual need for the same and as the need of the petitioner was not found
genuine and correct, the order impugned has been passed rejecting the claim
of the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions of the parties and have perused the
record. From the perusal of the Act it is clear that a person who is having arm
licence, can make another application and can acquire and possess three fire
arms and arm licences in view of Section 3 of the Act. Even the proviso
requires a person having more than three arms on the date of amendment of
the Act of 1983 which came into force, to surrender more than three arms.
Thus the acquiring and possessing of more than one arm is not prohibited. On
the other hand, it is permitted. From the perusal of Section 3 of the Act, it
appears that it does not provide that for acquiring a licence for the second
arm, the applicant has to disclose some special reason. In case the law does
not provide or prescribe, in that circumstances, the question is whether the
authorities below can reject the application filed by a person disclosing this
fact that he is having a licence of a particular arm. The application of other fire
arm made by the petitioner could have been rejected by the respondents on the
ground that the police report was not submitted in his favour. But this is not
3
the position in the present case. The police authorities have submitted a report
in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, as the order passed by the District
Magistrate does not disclose any reason for refusing the licence for possessing
the DBBL gun by the petitioner, the only reason assigned in the impugned
order is that the petitioner has not disclosed any special reason for acquiring
the second arm licence. If law does not prohibit the petitioner from obtaining
another arm licence, it could not have been refused by the respondents on the
ground that special reasons to be recorded were required to be intimated in the
application made by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid fact, the order
passed by the District Magistrate dated 1.12.2008 cannot be sustained.
In the result the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the District
Magistrate, Annexure-2 to the amendment application dated 1.12.2008 is
hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the application filed
by the petitioner for grant of revolver license strictly in accordance with law
and in view of the observations made above within a period of three months
from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
No order is passed as to costs.
27.10.2009
V.Sri/-

WRIT - C No. - 58293 of 2008 at Allahabad : Sunil Shukla, Advocate Vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Date of Decision - 27/10/2009
Court Number - 7
Judgment Type - Final AFR
Coram - Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Petitioner's Counsels - Vivek Mishra
Respondent's Counsel - C.S.C.
Formatted Text - Download (Opens in new window)

http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/e ... bSearch.do

Can someone email it to me? Or guide me? PM for id please.

[goodboy_mentor]

On the Allahabad High Court website, on the left hand side please click on case number. For "Main Seat/Bench" select Allahabad. For "Case Type" select Writ - C. For "Year" select 2008. For "Number" type in 58293. Once you click submit, it will show up the judgment.

[Katana]

Got it, thanks! This one clearly mentions 3 arms or 3 licenses.

[Katana]

Here's another one! : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/e ... udgment.do

[goodboy_mentor]

The link is saying Please enter the 4-digit numerical security code below to view Judgment/Order. After 4 digit code is entered, it says invalid paramenter. If you could mention the Main Seat/Bench, Case Type, Year and Case Number.

[Katana]

WRIT - C No. - 49301 of 2011 at Allahabad : Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs. State Of U.P. And Others
Date of Decision - 29/8/2011
Court Number - 21
Judgment Type - Final Non AFR
Coram - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Petitioner's Counsels - Yogesh Srivastava
Respondent's Counsel - C.S.C.

Allahbad High Court.

QUOTE In the interest of maintenance of law and order certain reasonable restrictions have been imposed on such right but that would not make the fundamental right itself to be dependant on the vagaries of executive authorities. It is not a kind of privilege being granted by Government to individual but only to the extent where grant of fire arm licence to an individual would demonstratively prejudice or adversely affect the maintenance of law and order including peace and tranquility in the society, ordinarily such right shall not be denied. It is in these circumstances, this Court has observed that grant of fire arm licence ordinarily be an action and denial an exception. In Vinod Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others, (Writ Petition No. 38645 of 2011), decided on 15.07.2011 this Court has said:
"When a fire arm licence is granted for personal safety and security it does not mean that in the family consisting of several persons only one fire arm licence is to be granted. Moreover, this cannot be a reason for denial of arm licence. UNQUOTE

[goodboy_mentor]

This judgment is already discussed here http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 64#p147708

Similar judgments can be read in the following links:
http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16494
http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17120
http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13504
http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15638
http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15639
http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17795

[Katana]

I went for the interview with the Collector today, armed with copies of all the above judgments carefully high lighting the relevant points. In fact I made an entire docket for the Collector. One piece of luck was a copy each of my grandmother's licenses. She's 98 now so the licenses were surrendered a few years ago but she had 3 weapons on 3 different licenses issued by the same administration that is trying to deny me an additional separate license.

I asked for the clerk, who had so bashfully said that he was not going to 'grant me the license and that I should cancel the application', to be present during the interview.

The Collector is young and seems to be unaware of the nuances of firearm ownership. My guess that the decision makers are at the mercy of their staff seems to be correct as he had no idea about firearms, or whom he is interviewing and for what purpose. The first question he asked me was as to why I wanted an additional weapon, not an additional license (I had already sent him a message on his web site about the clerk fracas). I replied that the applicability of each weapon was different followed with the fact that I am well within my rights to demand one. At this point I showed him the judgments.

He quickly wound up the interview after going through them and said that he would let me know his decision after a week after conferring with the District Superintendent of Police. I believe that the local Police report on my application has nothing averse.

Now all I can do is wait for about 10 days and maybe prepare my appeal to the Ministry of Home affairs.

[Katana]

I got talking to a gent who works closely with the Collector's Office. According to him, there is some sort of advisory note from the MHA, State Govt. to all Collectors/ DMs stating not to issue additional licenses. Additional weapons maybe permitted. I suspect this is to keep license figures down, at least on paper.

[captrakshitsharma]

The impression I got was that your question was how many licenses/weapons may one possess? My understanding is 3 guns with the exception of a . 22lr rifle for all rifle club members which makes it four. Every gun requires a separate license however they may all be endorsed in one booklet.

[goodboy_mentor]

According to him, there is some sort of advisory note from the MHA, State Govt. to all Collectors/ DMs stating not to issue additional licenses.

Administrative advisory/guideline/policy cannot take the place or override the provisions of Arms Act 1959. If the Licensing Authority shows the MHA advisory/guideline/policy, then one may officially inform him the relevant the observations of Supreme Court in following judgments:

1. Poonam Verma & Ors vs Delhi Development Authority on 13 December, 2007 and Subhash Ramkumar Bind @ Vakil & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 November, 2002. Relevant observation of Supreme Court can be read here http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17298

2. Ranjit Singh Etc. Etc vs Union Of India on 26 September, 1980. Relevant observation of Supreme Court can be read here http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17795

As per Article 141 of the Constitution, law declared by Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India.

[tandavbaba]

katana my friend you have done some real hard work.....so what was the end result did you got your shot gun?