Have you ever applied for an Arms License?

[amk]

Isn't there a HC or SC judgment which disallowed these "deposit during elections" practices?

AMK

[pran80]

Hi Amk,

I believe so there was a judgement on the same lines from Allahabad HC, though i do not know wether it's remit is pan india or only to the state of UP cos i have not seen my relatives in UP dspositing their arms during any of the elections in last few years.

[amk]

It can be used as a precedent in other HCs.

AMK

[mundaire]

The news report on the Allahabad High Court judgement is at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1454

Cheers!
Abhijeet

[jpc]

Yes , we have applied for Arm License in Year , 2003 but rejected by Licensing authority by taking vague and filmsy grounds. We filed Appeal before appellate authority , appeallate authority also rejected our appeal considering another ground which was never considered by Licensing Authority. Being Aggrived from the order of Appellate Authority filed an Petition in High Court of Gujarat. Ignoring all the principles of Justice & without considering our written submissions , as we were not present in court when the matter was called for hearing, dismissed our petition whit a direction to file fresh application before licensding authority. Being aggrived from the Order of Single Judge filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. Division Bench also dismissed the LPA stating that when such type of liberty is given , we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the Appeal.

Against the Order of Gujarat High Court , We filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) before the Supreme Court but the same is also dismissed without any order.

Now , we have made an fresh application before the Licensing Authority which is pending .

One thing we would like to tell you that we had cited so many Judgments of other High Courts of Single Judge as well as Devision Bench but all has been ignored by the Sigle Judge as well as Devoision Bench of the Gujarat High Court saying that all are not binding on us.The order of Single Judge of Gujarat High Court is full of ambiguity. We also tried to file re-view application before the Supreme Court but advised by advcate that it is only wastage of money.

J.P.Chaturvedi

[pran80]

Dear JPC, is this the same case which was reported in TOI about 6 months back. The report said that an application of licence was made on the grounds of safety of life and property and the same was being rejected by the licencing authority. A case was being filed in the Gujarat High Court and Allahabad High Court order was being presented as a precedence to which the Honable Justice remarked that " this order of Allahabad high court is not a binding on me and also remember that this is not U.P. or Bihar that you need a gun for your safety".

[jpc]

You are exactly right. The Hon'ble Cheif Justice Mr.Mukhopadhaya had remarked the same as you have mentioned above in open court. But I am unaware about its reporting in TOI.

Can you tell me about TOI in details or what is written?.

J.P.Chaturvedi

[pran80]

JPC, below are the links on the case from internet -

http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a125443.html

http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-81831.html

I am sorry but i am unable to find the internet link to the story published in Mumbai edition of TOI, but for sure i read it in it as i subscribe to TOI only. Will try searching it again.

Regards,

[jpc]

You have mentioned correct web address but what is actual order passed by Cheif Justice is totally different from what they have pronounced in open Court. For the reference , we are mentioning here the actual Order passed by Hon'ble Single Judge as well as Devision Bench of High Court of Gujarat which are as under,

It is remarkable to see that what is stated by Cheif Justice Mr. Mukhopadhaya in open cour is entirely different from what he has mentioned in his Order in LPA No.555 of 2010 in SCA No.558 of 2006.


SCA/558/2006 5/5 ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 558 of 2006
=========================================================

JAGDAMBA PRASAD CHATURVEDI - Petitioner(s)

Versus

DY.SECRETARY THR' PUBLIC PROSECUTOR & 1 - Respondent(s)

=========================================================
Appearance :
NOTICE SERVED for Petitioner(s) : 1,PARTY-IN-PERSON for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RASHESH A RINDANI AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2,

=========================================================

CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

Date : 18/02/2010

ORAL ORDER

1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner-party-in-person has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 07.06.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Valsad and also to quash and set aside order dated 05.07.2004 passed by the respondent No.1- Deputy Secretary (Appeal), Home Department, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar whereby the application of the petitioner is rejected refusing to grant the Arm Licence taking fake reasons.

2.0 The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner made an application on 15.11.2003 in Form 'A' as prescribed under Scheduled III of Rule 51 for grant of licence submitted in the office of Licensing Authority i.e District Magistrate/Collector, Valsad. On 02.06.2004, the petitioner was called for personal hearing before the District Magistrate/Collector, Valsad. The petitioner was present at the time of personal hearing on 02.06.2004 before the licensing authority and explained in detail orally and also submitted written submissions. On 07.06.2004, the Licensing Authority issued order under Section 14(3) of Arms Act, 1959 refusing to grant the Arm License. On 05.07.2004, being aggrieved by the order dated 07.06.2004, petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar. On 16.11.2005, the petitioner was called for personal hearing vide letter dated 29.10.2005, before the Deputy Secretary, Home Department. The petitioner explained in detail about the case and also submitted the written submissions. The Deputy Secretary, rejected the application of the petitioner by confirming the order of the District Magistrate. Hence, this petition.

4.0 At the time of admitting the petition, this Court has given liberty to the petitioner to move for an application for early disposal after the pleadings are completed vide order dated 16.01.2006.

5.0 Thereafter, the matter has come up on 23.03.2006. On that day, the party-in-person has submitted written submissions.

6.0 When matter was listed on 15.01.2010, the party-in-person was issued notice informing the date of hearing as 18.02.2010. Though served, party-in-person is not present before the Court. The party-in-person has made application before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice regarding the matter. The petitioner has sent a fax message dated 29.04.2008 stating that his matter should be decided on the basis of the written submissions as it is not possible for him to attend every hearing by coming from Valsad. He further stated that no date has been communicated to him since 29.04.2008.

7.0 Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that as per Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, if there are sufficient reasons, the Licensing Officer can reject the application for grant of armed license. Hence, the respondent authority has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of licence.

8.0 Firstly, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing by the authority. The petitioner has not shown any reasons to have the armed licence in his personal capacity. According to the respondent, for the transactions of the company, the company can request for the armed licence. Petitioner in his personal capacity is not apprehending any danger in his personal capacity. I am, therefore, of the view that the application of the petitioner is rightly rejected.

9.0 In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

10.0 However, it is open to the petitioner to make fresh application for the licence before the concerned authority with required documents. If such an application is made, the same shall be considered by the authority in accordance with law.

11.0 With the above observation petition stands disposed of.

(K.S.JHAVERI, J.)


Below mentioned is the Order of Division Bench in LPA No.555 of 2010 in SCA No.558 of 2006.


LPA/555/2010 2/2 ORDE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 555 of 2010

In

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 558 of 2006


==================================================

JAGDAMBA PRASAD CHATURVEDI - Appellant(s)

Versus

DY.SECRETARY THR' PUBLIC PROSECUTOR & 1 - Respondent(s)

================================================== Appearance :
PARTY-IN-PERSON for Appellant(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2,
==================================================

CORAM :
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA

and

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI

Date : 01/04/2010


ORAL ORDER

(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

The appellant who applied for an Arms Licence, having denied, moved before the learned Single Judge who also dismissed the writ petition. The main ground taken by the appellant is that he has right to hold Arms Licence for his personal defence.

It will be evident on record that the appellant was given liberty of hearing before the authority but having failed to show appropriate ground to have Arms Licence in the personal capacity, his application was not entertained. However, as certain problems were highlighted before the learned Single Judge, by impugned order dated 18th February 2010 the learned Judge has allowed the appellant to submit fresh application for the licence before the competent authority with required documents. Since such liberty is given, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the appeal.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J. )

( AKIL KURESHI, J. )

kailash





Top











niru*





Top

[goodboy_mentor]

8.0 Firstly, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing by the authority. The petitioner has not shown any reasons to have the armed licence in his personal capacity. According to the respondent, for the transactions of the company, the company can request for the armed licence. Petitioner in his personal capacity is not apprehending any danger in his personal capacity. I am, therefore, of the view that the application of the petitioner is rightly rejected.

In my opinion the main problem is that people have mainly out of ignorance, slowly and steadily converted their own fundamental rights into a "need/no need", "threat/no threat" issue. Hence the misery and questions of reason/no reason, danger/no danger are being asked as well as being told as reasons for denial of arms licenses. And this is also being accepted by some courts. I assume that the lawyers in the case did not inform the court of the points mentioned below and mainly relied on the strength of citations, text of Arms Act and ignored Constitutional and Legal aspect. I do not blame them, it is the general ignorance of the rights of people among general populace that is to be blamed.

CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECT: The Right to Life & Liberty is guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution. The guarantee of Right to Life & Liberty becomes absolutely meaningless if the Right to Self Defense is denied. Also the Right to Self Defense becomes absolutely meaningless if the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is denied. It clearly follows if RKBA is violated by State the Right to Life & Liberty gets violated by State. Fountain of all powers & laws is the Constitution. The Police and paramilitary are also given firearms for the self defense as per RKBA as allowed by the same Constitutional guarantee under Article 21. Citizens rights are no less. If RKBA is denied other fundamental Rights like freedom of movement and freedom expression also get affected(Whenever there is a dispute or a question of law, more weightage is given to the Constitutional aspect by courts than the law passed by Parliament) For the historical place of RKBA in our Constitution please refer http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 15#p111609 Moreover RKBA is a Human Right as well. RKBA is also a right which Indians have been enjoying from the times immemorial. It is only during brief colonial period under British rule it was violated for colonial reasons.

LEGAL ASPECT: One of the objectives of Arms Act 1959 is "that weapons for self-defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege;"(Whenever there is a dispute or a question of law, more weightage is given to the objectives of the Act than the meaning in the text of various sections of the law.) Please note the language of objective "for all citizens under license unless........" It clearly shows that license is to be granted to all citizens unless disqualified. Example convicted for hienious crimes etc.

Every High Court and the Supreme Court in India is also a "court of record" If the case pertains to the same question of law, definitely the citations of other High Courts can be given. High Court should also give importance to citations since the same Arms Act is applicable in every state. It cannot be said that same law can be interpreted differently in different states. If different judgments are being given for the same question of law, it is violation of the constitutional provision for equality before law. Also Supreme court has given numerous judgments supporting the right of self defense. If people are to be denied arms then how will they do self defense?

In my opinion please contact and co-ordinate with NAGRI as to what is the next course of action.

[jpc]

The Order of Gujarat High Court should be criticized by the mass of people as the same is totally against the provisions of Arms Act , 1959 . Gujarat High Court has completely failed to interpretate the Section 14 of the Arms Act , 1959 as it can be seen that in whole order Hon'ble Justice did not mention a single line about Section 14 where specific and exhaustive grounds is given for refusal of Arm License. It is never open to the court to justify illegal ground of licensing authority when specific grounds are provided itself in Statute. It is well setteled in law that when the wordings of a statute is clear and unambigous then it is not open to court to add , sustract or read some thing elese which do not find mention in the Statute. The Licensing authority ans well as Court can not enlarge the scope of legislation. Hon;ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Nasiruddin and ors. V/s Sita Ram Agarwal in ppeal (Civil) No.5077 of 1998 which is as under,

In Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC
577, the three judge-Bench of this Court pointed out in
paragraphs 35 and 37 ( SCC p. 588) and (SCC p. 589) as
under:-
"35.In a case where the statutory provision is plain
and unambiguous, the court shall not interpret the
same in a different manner, only because of harsh
consequences arising therefrom."
"37. The Court’s jurisdiction to interpret a statue
can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It is
well known that in a given case the court can iron
out the fabric but it cannot change the texture of
the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation
or intention when the language of the provision is
plain and unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract
words to a statue or read something into it which is
not there. It cannot rewrite or recast legislation".

The view of this court is also approved by the Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court .

The order of Gujarat High Court is totally wrong.

J.P.Chaturcedi

[goodboy_mentor]

The Order of Gujarat High Court should be criticized by the mass of people as the same is totally against the provisions of Arms Act , 1959 .

1)The Order of Gujarat High Court ignored Arms Act 1959
2)The Order of Gujarat High Court ignored the objectives and reasons of the Arms Act 1959
3)The Order of Gujarat High Court ignored the sanctity of Constitutionally guaranteed Fundamental Rights under Part III.

I have tried to explain this at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 15#p117785

Also very sensible judgment of AP High Court can be read at http://www.indiansforguns.com/viewtopic ... 7&start=15

[Risala]

Yes , we have applied for Arm License in Year , 2003 but rejected by Licensing authority by taking vague and filmsy grounds. We filed Appeal before appellate authority , appeallate authority also rejected our appeal considering another ground which was never considered by Licensing Authority. Being Aggrived from the order of Appellate Authority filed an Petition in High Court of Gujarat. Ignoring all the principles of Justice & without considering our written submissions , as we were not present in court when the matter was called for hearing, dismissed our petition whit a direction to file fresh application before licensding authority. Being aggrived from the Order of Single Judge filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. Division Bench also dismissed the LPA stating that when such type of liberty is given , we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the Appeal.

Against the Order of Gujarat High Court , We filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) before the Supreme Court but the same is also dismissed without any order.

Now , we have made an fresh application before the Licensing Authority which is pending .

One thing we would like to tell you that we had cited so many Judgments of other High Courts of Single Judge as well as Devision Bench but all has been ignored by the Sigle Judge as well as Devoision Bench of the Gujarat High Court saying that all are not binding on us.The order of Single Judge of Gujarat High Court is full of ambiguity. We also tried to file re-view application before the Supreme Court but advised by advcate that it is only wastage of money.

J.P.Chaturvedi

JPC

Hats off for going all the way to the Supreme Court, pity that you could not get the relief that you were looking for.

The Order of Gujarat High Court should be criticized by the mass of people as the same is totally against the provisions of Arms Act , 1959 .

1)The Order of Gujarat High Court ignored Arms Act 1959
2)The Order of Gujarat High Court ignored the objectives and reasons of the Arms Act 1959
3)The Order of Gujarat High Court ignored the sanctity of Constitutionally guaranteed Fundamental Rights under Part III.

I have tried to explain this at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 15#p117785

Also very sensible judgment of AP High Court can be read at http://www.indiansforguns.com/viewtopic ... 7&start=15

Good Boy Mentor,
It amazes me that even after reading JPC's experience you are still at it & continue to encourage people to take the legal route....which is actually annoying because innocent members might actually take that advice and end up not only wasting time but also money by way of fees to lawyers....who for the most part only benefit from the ignorance of their clients.

I hope JPC's post is an eye opener for the folks who want to follow that route.

[goodboy_mentor]

Sanjay,

If I have not understood it wrong, it appears from your above post that you are suggesting that people should not to take a legal route. People are anyways always free to take their own decisions. Even if I agree to your opinion for the limited scope of this discussion, may I know what is the alternate to the legal route you are suggesting?

I certainly appreciate and respect the spirit of jpc for going till supreme court, but would also like to add, the outcome of any case besides other factors like the merits of case, also depends a lot on how strongly and properly a lawyer presents the points of law in the case to court. For example two men are booked in two separate cases of murder under the same Section 302 of IPC. Lawyer of the first accused fights the case so well that court gives the benefit of doubt to his client and he gets acquitted of the charges, but the accused in second case gets life imprisonment. How is it possible? Similarly every case under Arms Act 1959 also depends on lot of factors, the lawyer also being one of the factors. Just because jpc's case did not go well for some reasons, that does not mean every case is bound to meet the same fate. Probably you have not noted the link I provided for AP High Court judgment that was won by lawyer and court is clearly directing the LA to issue the license.

At least I am suggesting a legal route that has fair chances to succeed, if the licensing authority does not issue a license. I humbly request you to please take this opportunity and enlighten the forum by suggesting a better route, if you have, in case the licensing authority does not issue a license

[nagarifle]

there is one thing i have learnt in life. the system is stacked against you. you have the rights given by law. still the system wants to deny you your rights.

i do know that any case that one takes to court has to be water tight case in you favour, and every lawyer will tall you that you have a worthy case and its winnable, a case not prepared right will end up thrown out.

Also lawyers are two a penny so to speak and their knowledge of Arms Act/ Cons tuition rights are equal to or less then a lay mans knowledge.

A good lawyer who can agrue your case is all so important.

apart from the legal route what other option is there? maybe go on hunger strick