ARMS RULES 2015. SUPPORT NAGRI TO GO TO COURT

[shadow]

i am in...

[sa_ali]

I am in with both financial and physical support and contribution

[karnan]

I am in ...

[ayubi786]

Dear Sir
plz change the Arms 2015 Draft is public friendly.
Not leader friendly

[aadhaulya]

Dear Ayubi,

Sorry I did not understand that. You want it changed or not. How is it people friendly and not leader friendly??

Atul

[SMJ]

with Atulji, didn't follow either Ayubiji
Perhaps you mean that it should be changed to make it more people friendly and not leader friendly?

[ankur_ank007]

Dear Members,

After a judgement by Allahabad High Court's 5 Judges full Bench, (Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014) it has become quite difficult to file writs also referring to the case of Ganesh Chandra Bhat vs DM of Almora- Judgement date 11 March 1993.

The text of judgement of Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014 is as follows;

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

AFR

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 62 of 2014

Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Respondent :- Mahipat Singh Counsel for Appellant :- A.K. Roy, S.C.

Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi

Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.

The Special Appeal by the State arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 11 December 2013. While setting aside an order passed by the District Magistrate rejecting the application filed by the respondent for grant of a firearm license, the learned Single Judge did not accept the view of the District Magistrate that there was no perception of threat to the life of the respondent. The Learned Judge held that sufficient reasons had come on the record in regard to the threat perception to the life of the respondent since his brother had been murdered. The Learned Single Judge, accordingly, directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the matter having regard to the observations contained in a judgment dated 11 October 2011 in Writ Petition 58060 of 2011 earlier filed by the respondent and directed the District Magistrate to pay costs to the extent of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent.

The respondent had submitted an application for the grant of a license for a Double Barrel Breach-Load (DBBL) Gun on 19 June 2007. The application was rejected by the District Magistrate, Banda. The appeal was rejected thereafter by the Commissioner. These orders were called in question by the respondent in Writ Petition 58060 of 2011. By a judgment dated 11 October 2011 the learned Single Judge, while allowing the petition, set aside the orders impugned and remanded the proceedings to the District Magistrate for re-consideration. Following the decision, the District Magistrate, Banda by an order dated 6 January 2012 rejected the application. The respondent thereupon filed an appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner who remanded the proceedings to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate thereafter by an order dated 29 August 2013 rejected the application which led to the filing of Writ Petition 64953 of 2013 by the respondent. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge has been passed on this petition filed by the respondent.

The Learned Single Judge held that the order was passed by the District Magistrate in a mechanical manner without considering the observations made by the Court in the judgment dated 11 October 2011 delivered in the writ petition earlier filed by the respondent. The relevant observations in the judgment are as follows :-

"The court held that a licence can be granted for right to life and liberty which includes within its ambit right of security and safety of a person being a fundamental right. The petitioner was entitled to get a fire arm for the purpose of personal safety and security. The court also held that the order passed by the District Magistrate was based on surmises and conjectures.

Inspite of this direction, the District Magistrate again rejected the application vide an order dated 6.1.2012 holding that the petitioner does not have any threat to his life..............

........... The court finds that the observation made by the writ court in its judgment dated 11.10.2011 has not been adhered to by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate was bound by such observations and could not ignore such observations. By ignoring such observations the District Magistrate became guilty of contempt of the court.

In the instant case, the District Magistrate has mechanically, without any application of mind and without considering the observations of the writ court has again passed an order rejecting the

petitioner's application for grant of an arms licence solely on the ground that there was no perception of threat to the life of the petitioner. Such reasoning adopted by the respondent is patently erroneous and against the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act. Even otherwise, the court finds that sufficient reasons have come on record to indicate the fear of the petitioner of his life where his real brother was murdered by some assailants, and that, by itself, is a sufficient ground. It is not necessary that the petitioner should intimate the District Magistrate the name of the persons against whom he has a threat. It is sufficient for the petitioner to indicate the reasons."

The learned Single Judge has observed that the directions which were earlier issued by the Court on 11 October 2011 have not been complied with. It would, therefore, be necessary to refer to the observations and the directions contained in the judgment dated 11 October 2011, which are as follows :-

"7. This Court in Pawan Kumar Jha Vs. State of U.P. and others 2010(10) ADJ 782 has held that undue restriction on keeping and bearing arms ought not be based on unfounded fear. Licence is normally to be granted unless there is something adverse.

8. A fire arm licence cannot be denied only on conjectures and surmises and without appreciating the objective of statute under which the power is being exercised. Right to life and liberty which includes within its ambit right of security and safety of a person and taking, adopting and pursuing such means as are necessary for such safety and security, is a fundamental right of every person. Keeping a fire arm for the purpose of personal safety and security is a mode and manner of protection of oneself and enjoyment of fundamental right of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 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 tranquillity 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.

11. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.01.2011 and 14.07.2011 are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Collector concerned to consider the same afresh in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above and pass a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. "

(emphasis supplied)

The judgment dated 11 October 2011 indicates that the learned Judge issued the directions on the basis of the following three factors: (i) a licence should normally be granted unless there is something adverse; (ii) keeping of fire arms for the purpose of personal safety and security is a mode and manner of protection and enjoyment of the fundamental right of life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution; and (iii) grant of a licence is not a privilege granted by the government to an individual.

What is, therefore, necessary is to first examine whether these three factors were relevant for issuing the directions.

A Full Bench of this Court consisting of five Hon'ble Judges in Kailash Nath & Ors., Vs. State of U.P.

& Ors.1 held that obtaining of a licence for acquisition and possession of firearms under the Arms Act, 1959 is nothing more than a privilege and that this cannot even remotely be comprehended as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Full Bench held thus :-

"................. In my opinion the obtaining of a licence for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition under the Arms Act is nothing more than a privilege and the grant of such privilege does not involve the adjudication of the right of an individual nor does it entail civil consequences. I may,

however, hasten to add that even an order rejecting the application for grant of licence may become legally vulnerable if it is passed arbitrarily or capriciously or without application of mind. No doubt, a citizen may apply for grant of a licence of firearms mostly with the object of protecting his person or property but that is mainly the function of the State. Even remotely this cannot be comprehended within the ambit of Art. 21 of the Constitution which postulates the fundamental right of protection of life and personal liberty. It deals with deprivation of life and as held in Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88 : (AIR 1950 SC 27). Art. 21 is attracted only in cases of deprivation in the sense of total loss and that accordingly has no application to the case of a mere restriction upon the right to move freely or to the grant of licence for possession and acquisition of firearms which stands on an entirely different footing from the licence to carry on a trade or occupation. ................" (emphasis supplied)

In Balram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.2 a Full Bench of this Court reiterated that obtaining of a licence for possessing a fire-arm is a privilege granted by the State :

"In this connection, another aspect of the matter cannot be lost sight of. Obtaining of a licence for possessing a fire-arm has to be held a privilege only. No civil consequences follow. Even if we were to hold that consequences do follow as it may in proceedings concerning licences issued under Section 4 or 5 of the Act, the security of public peace or public safety would be of paramount importance........" (emphasis supplied)

However, a learned Judge of this Court in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt Vs. The District Magistrate,

Almora3 held that the right to carry firearms was included in Article 21 of the Constitution since "life" in Article 21 of the Constitution would include 'right to live with dignity' which was possible only if a person possessed a fire arm. A mandamus was, therefore, issued that the application for grant of a firearm licence should be decided within three months and the normal rule should be to grant the licence in the case of non-prohibited firearms and refusal should be an exception and that too for strong reasons to be recorded in writing. Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment dated 27 October 1993 rendered in Writ Petition No.29963 of 1993 (Devendra Pratap Singh Vs. District Magistrate) also held that the right to carry a non-prohibited weapon was a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

As these observations were found to be in the teeth of the observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in Kailash Nath (supra), the matter was referred to a Larger Bench.

A Special Bench of this Court consisting of five Hon'ble Judges in Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh4 answered the said reference holding that obtaining of a licence for acquisition and possession of firearms under the Act is no more than a privilege and the right to carry fire arms does not fall within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Special Bench held as follows : "33. Turning now to the reference pertaining to the grant of an arms licence, there is the judgment of M. Katju, J. in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. The District Magistrate, Almora (1993(30) ACC 204) where the learned Judge held that the right to carry non-prohibited firearms was part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India since he said the word 'life' in Articles 21 has been held by the Supreme Court to be a life of dignity. It was, in this behalf, his view that is only an armed man who can lead a life of dignity and self respect.

34. The learned Judge went on to lay down as a legal proposition that "Whenever an application for a licence for a non-prohibited arm is made and it is not disposed of within three months it will be deemed to have been allowed on the expiry of three months". Not only this, but a general mandamus was also issued "to all concerned authorities that whenever any application for licence under the Arms Act is made the same must be processed and decided within three months, and the normal rule must be grant of the licence in the case of non-prohibited firearms, and the refusal should be exception and for strong reasons to be recorded in writing after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant, and such reasons for rejection must be communicated to the application within three months of the application. The licence should also be normally not restricted to the district or State except for special

reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant."

35. Both these views, namely, that if no order is passed on an application for an arms licence within three months from the date thereof it shall be deemed to have been granted and that the right to carry a non-prohibited weapon was a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, were later given the seal of approval by the Division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29963 of 1993 (Devendra Pratap Singh Vs. District Magistrate), decided on October 27, 1993, of which M. Katju, J. was a member.

36. Strong reservations were expressed by Bahuguna, J. in Ajai Singh's case to the rationale of the judgments in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt, 1993 (30) ACC 204 and Devendra Pratap's cases (supra) Civ. Misc. Writ Pet. No.29963 of 1993, D/-27-10-93 and he consequently sought their reconsideration by a larger Bench.

37. A reading of the relevant statutory provisions of the Arms Act would show that no time limit has been prescribed therein for the consideration of an application for the grant of an arms licence, nor is there any provision to the effect that if the application is not finally decided within a particular time frame, the licensing authority shall be bound to grant the licence, or that the licence shall be deemed to have been granted. We, therefore, cannot but concur with the view of Vijay Bahuguna, J. that had the intention of the Legislature been such, specific provisions would undoubtedly have been made for it in the Act. On the face of it, therefore, the provisions of the Arms Act cannot be so construed as to provide for a deeming provisions for the grant of a licence merely on the expiry of a particular period of time. ......

38. Equally unsustainable is the view that the right to carry non-prohibited fired arms comes within the purview of Art. 21 of the Constitution, nor indeed one can we subscribe to the theory as expounded by M. Katju, J. In Ganesh Chandra Bhatt's case 1993(30) ACC 204, that it is only an armed man who can lead a life of dignity and self respect. As rightly held in Kailash Nath's case 1985 AWC 493: AIR 1985 All 291 (supra), obtaining of a licence for acquisition and possession of fire arms under the Arms Act is no more than a privilege. M.N. Shukla, C.J. in this behalf, further observed "No doubt, a citizen may apply for grant of a licence of fire arms mostly with the object of protecting his person or property but that is mainly the function of the State. Even remotely this cannot be comprehended within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution which postulates the fundamental right of protection of life and personal liberty. It deals with deprivation of life and as held in Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88 Article 21 is attracted only in cases of deprivation in the sense of total loss and that accordingly has no application to the case of a mere restriction upon the right to move freely or to the grant of licence for possession and acquisition of fire arms which stands on an entirely different footing from the licence to carry on a trade or occupation". M.K. Katju, J. in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt's case (1993 (30) ACC 204, brushed aside this observation by fastening upon it the label of "per incuriam". On the face of it, this represents a glaring instance of a learned Single Judge, as they say "Seeking to win the game by sweeping all the chessmen of the table" by so blatantly disregarding a binding judgment of a Full Bench of five Judges, by merely saying it is per incuriam, when it was clearly not so.

.....................

42. It will thus be seen that branding the observation in Kailash Nath's case (supra), with regard to the right to carry firearms and it not coming under Article 21 of the Constitution, as being merely per incuriam was not founded upon any law or precedent and was, therefore, wholly unwarranted, rather it constitutes a striking instance of the manner in which the per incuriam rule never can or should be applied. It follows, therefore, that the right to carry firearms does not come within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution. We are, thus, again constrained to hold that both Ganesh Chandra Bhatt's case 1993 (30) ACC 204 as also Devendra Pratap Singh's case Civil Mis. Writ Petition No.29963 of 1993, D/-7-10-1993, do not lay down correct law and are consequently hereby over-ruled." (emphasis supplied)

What, therefore, follows from the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench is that obtaining of a licence for acquisition and possession of fire arms is nothing more than a privilege and Article 21 of the

Constitution has no application to the grant of a licence for possession and acquisition of firearms.

This apart, the view taken by a learned Judge of this Court in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt (supra) that the normal rule while taking a decision on any application for grant of a licence under the Act must be to grant the licence and refusal should be an exception and that too for strong reasons was not accepted by the Full Bench in Rana Pratap Singh (supra) since it was overruled.

The learned Judge was, therefore, not justified in taking the three factors referred to above into consideration while issuing the directions on 11 October 2011 in the earlier writ petition filed by the respondent.

It is necessary to note that apart from the aforesaid three Full Bench decisions of this Court, there is a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Kapildeo Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.5 which also holds that there is no fundamental right to bear arms and the right to carry arms is a privilege conferred by the Act. It has also been observed in this judgment that a wide discretion has been given to the licensing authority in regard to grant of firearms licence and the relevant observations are:- "Before one proceeds to microscopically examine the provisions under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the broad approach to the issue may be first settled. In our Constitution and jurisprudence there is no fundamental right to bear arms. ..............

........ and indeed under the Indian law the right to carry arms is privilege conferred by the Act and other similar statutes which primarily leave the grant thereof in the discretion of the licensing authority. Reference in this connection may instructively be made to the relevant parts of Sections 3, 13 and 14 of the Act.

................ ................

It would be manifest from the aforesaid provisions that under the Act there is first a legal bar for having in possession or carrying a firearm unless a valid licence is first secured in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Secondly, even the original grant under Section 13(2A) is vested entirely in the licensing authority and it seems that the widest discretion has been given to it. Even after conforming to the procedural requirements, the licensing authority may, as regards the general category of arms, either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same. This discretion in this context has perhaps been deliberately kept untrammelled. Further, under Section 14 the law mandates a refusal to grant licence even where the licencing authority has reason to believe that the applicant is for any reason unfit for licence under the Act. The larger tilt of the law in this context is thus somewhat too plain to call for further elaboration."

(emphasis supplied)

At this stage it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Act and the Arms Rules, 1962 relating to grant/refusal of firearm licence. Under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, no person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 13 provides for the grant of of licences under Chapter II (of which Section 3 is a part) and sub-section (2) of Section 13 requires the licensing authority to call for the report of the officer in charge of the nearest police station on the application. Under sub-section (2-A), the licensing authority is empowered to either grant the licence or refuse the grant of licence after such inquiry as it may consider necessary and upon considering the report received under sub-section (2).

Section 14 of the Act deals with the refusal of licences and provides as follows:-

"14. Refusal of licences.--(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant--

(a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition;

(b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,--

(i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe--

(1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or

(2) to be of unsound mind, or

(3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or

(ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence.

(2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property.

(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement."

Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 would thus indicate that a licence under Section 3, Section 4 or Section 5 shall be refused where it is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition. In any other case under Chapter-II, a licence shall be refused where the licensing authority has reason to believe that the person who requires a licence is prohibited by the Act or by any other law from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition; or that he is of unsound mind or unfit for any reason for a licence under the Act. Similarly, a licence shall be refused where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or public safety to refuse the grant of such licence. In other words, the effect of Section 14 is to provide a catalogue of circumstances in which notwithstanding anything in Section 13, a licence shall be refused. This does not mean that in all other cases a licence must necessarily be granted. Section 14 specifies the grounds when a licence shall be refused, but even otherwise, under Section 13, the licensing authority is duty bound to apply its mind to all the relevant facts and circumstances in determining as to whether the licence should be granted or refused. In those cases which would fall within the ambit of Section 14, the licensing authority must necessarily refuse the licence. Rule 51 of the Rules provides that every application for the grant of a licence shall contain all such information as is necessary for the consideration of the application. Rule 51-A provides that the application shall not suppress any factual information or furnish any false or wrong information in the application form. Every application for the grant of licence has to be in Form ''A' prescribed under the Rules. Part ''A' of Form ''A' requires a disclosure of the identity of the applicant, Part ''B' is for other particulars in relation to the applicant and Part ''C' is for particulars of the licence. Part ''C' requires a disclosure of the need for a licence and of claims for special consideration. In considering the grant of a licence, the authority is duty bound to consider such facts as may be personal to the applicant as well as the impact of the grant of the licence on the safety and security of others which may be impinged by the grant of the licence. Ultimately, the governing test is whether the public interest in the maintenance of law and order and public peace or safety would be enhanced or retarded by the grant of a firearm licence.

Hence, the scheme of the Act and the Rules indicates that a wide discretion has been given to the licensing authority while deciding applications filed for grant of licences and it is not possible to subscribe to the broad general proposition which has found favour with the learned Single Judge. Undoubtedly, the licensing provisions of the Act would require that the power which is vested in the competent authority to grant or refuse the grant of a licence must not be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically but for just and sound reasons. The maintenance of law and order and public peace and safety is the responsibility of the State. The grant of a licence for a firearm is governed by the licensing provisions which are contained in the Act. A citizen cannot assert a right to hold a firearm. In every case where an application for the grant of a licence is made, the authority is duty bound to

examine whether sufficient ground has been made out for grant of a licence. The discretion which is conferred upon the statutory authorities cannot be confined to fixed categories.

In this connection, it would also be useful to refer to the following observations made by a learned Judge of this Court in Hari Shanker Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.6 :

"7. The Arms Act provides for a procedure for grant of licence for the fire arm. If the licensing authority is satisfied under Section 13(3)(c) of the Act that a person, who has applied for the licence, has good reason to obtain for the same, he may grant licence. In other case, the licensing authority may reject the application. The subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate in such case cannot be put to any straight jacket formula.

8. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that in the State of U.P., lakhs of fire arms licences have been conceded by indiscriminate grant to the persons for asking, including those who have affiliations to political parties and also those who have long criminal records. The Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that the persons, possessing fire arms licences are displaying these fire arms openly in public places including schools, colleges, hospitals, Courts, railway platforms and other places which creates a sense of fear in the society. The possession of a fire arm has become a source of forced respect and acquisition of power in the society.

9. The licensing authorities have granted licences virtually to everyone who applies to them to possess the fire arm. The peaceful existence of the citizens in the society is threatened by such reckless executive action. It is often found that the licensing authorities are not exercising their powers for the purposes for which it is given to him.

10. A person may need a licence for his self defence or for the defence of his property. The nature of the job of the person may also require him to possess the fire arm. In all such cases the facts, which constitute the special circumstances, are to be examined by the licensing authority. These circumstances need not be put to any objective test. There may be cases where a person may be the witness of a heinous crime and is under threat or the nature of his occupation may require him to keep the fire arm. The licensing authority must also look into the back-ground and character of the person, and the type of fire arm required by such person before grant of licence. The fact, that a person is a contractor and alleges to have some unspecified enmity, is not a sufficient ground to grant fire arm licence.

11. The writ petition is dismissed with observations that the State Government shall issue necessary directions to all the licensing authorities to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Arms Act for grant of fire arm licences and make obligatory for all the licensing authority to give adequate and special reasons based on material on record for such grant or the renewal of existing licences."

Observations to the same effect were also made in Parvez Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.7.

It is in the light of these observations that the order that was passed by the District Magistrate on 29 August 2013 to reject the application filed by the respondent for grant of a firearm licence, which order was assailed in the writ petition out of which this Special Appeal arises, has to be tested. In the order of the District Magistrate due notice was taken of the fact that the brother of the respondent had been murdered in 2007. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed inter alia under under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against two persons, both of whom, after conviction, were sentenced to imprisonment for life. One of them is in jail while the other has been enlarged on bail in pursuance of an order of this Court. The District Magistrate has furnished the following reasons for rejecting the application for the grant of a firearm licence:-

(i) The incident took place nearly six years earlier but no material was furnished by the respondent from which it can be inferred that there was a threat perception to his life;

(ii) The respondent was neither a complainant in the F.I.R. nor was he a witness in the criminal trial; (iii) The competent police authorities had granted their no objection to the grant of a firearm licence but had not made a positive recommendation;

(iv) The application filed by the respondent for the grant of a firearm licence was incomplete and several important columns including that which requires the applicant to disclose whether he has a safe place to keep the firearm, were left blank;

(v) The respondent had also failed to disclose any special circumstances for grant of a licence in the application and if there was a threat perception following the murder of his brother at the hands of the accused or otherwise, it ought to have been specifically divulged in columns 15 and 16 of the application, but they were left blank.

In the present case while dealing with the exercise of discretion by the authorities, it needs to be noted at the outset that in the application which was submitted by the respondent, several important columns were left blank. This included the column which required the respondent to mention whether he had a safe place to keep the firearm. The respondent also left columns 15 and 16 blank and did not mention any special reason on the basis of which he wanted an arms licence. The District Magistrate, in our view, justifiably inferred that there was no danger to the life or liberty of the respondent as the disclosure of such information was necessary to enable the District Magistrate to decide whether a case for the grant of a licence had been made out. The District Magistrate, while passing the order dated 29 August 2013, also observed that the incident in which the brother of the respondent had been murdered had taken place in 2007 which was nearly six years earlier and the respondent had not placed any material to indicate that during this period of over six years there was any basis or foundation to infer a threat perception to his life. It cannot, therefore, be said that the findings recorded by the District Magistrate are perverse.

The learned Single Judge has held that the reasons which weighed with the District Magistrate are patently erroneous and against the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. This conclusion of the learned Single Judge is not correct. Whether there is a perception of threat to the security of a citizen, is a matter which has to be considered by the licensing authority. The learned Single Judge has erred in substituting his opinion about a perception of threat with that of the of District Magistrate. We must hasten to add that in a case where discretion is conferred on a public authority to grant or refuse a licence to hold a firearm, the scope of judicial review is limited. The Court has to consider whether any irrelevant or extraneous consideration has been taken into account by the authority and or if it ignored relevant, valid and germane matters. In a case like the present, where the relevant circumstances have been taken in consideration and no extraneous considerations were taken into account, it would be outside the purview of judicial review of the Court to substitute its own opinion with the opinion of the licensing authority.

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the order which was passed by the District Magistrate was manifestly in accordance with law and did not call for any interference by the learned Single Judge in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

We, therefore, allow the Special Appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11 December 2013. In consequence, the writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Date: 15.01.2014

GS

(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.)

(Dilip Gupta, J.)

However if we can relate the RKBA to Article 19b and Article 21 as well as sections 96 to 106 of IPC with a well written draft, there is a hope to file a write against the decision of Allahabad High Court. We can also ask The Honourable Supreme Court of India to intervene and interpret various clauses which provide arbitrary powers to the Licensing Authority. This arbitrary power is the root of corruption in the Licensing process as well as this has created a gap in Balance of Power between powerful people or so called VIPs and common men. Since Allahabad High court quashed the judgement by Justice Markandey Katju on various interpretations mentioned above in the judgement, we can take help of a few learned senior counsels.

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/R ... adWKvmqpBc


Looking forward to get your valued suggestions.

Regards,
Ankur

[ankur_ank007]

Hi All,

I am ready to support the cause. Lets start fundraising. I also wrote an Email to Justice Katju requesting him to support the cause. I know for many he may not be a good choice, but we must remember he was the Justice in case of Ganesh Chandra Bhatt vs D.M. of Almora. Lets hope he reciprocates.
Apart from this I also wrote mails to Mr. Rajiv Pratap Rudy (Minister for Entrepreneurship & Skill Development) Mr. Radha Mohan Singh (Minister for Agriculture). Lets hope for the best and move to SCI. I think no politician is going to support the cause.

Regards

[Anand]

IMHO, unless specific clarity is sought from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, there will be no change in the situation. This is simply the way the laws are written, ambiguously enough and with huge amounts of discretion left to those in power that ultimately the verdict can be swung anyway depending on the situation. Think of it, if the laws were made clear so that any one could understand them, then there would be no need for "interpretation". Every thing would be clear in black and white, what will there be left to "interpret"?

Like wise, solid movement to change the current scenario via actions of NAGRI seem to be bearing fruit. How sweet, sour or bitter is to be seen in the future!! But this may not be the first time that the bureaucrats have subverted or diluted a good law from coming into force because it may change the balance of power in favour of the citizens. This is because of their attitude, a hangover from an oppressive British Government. They don't consider us and themselves as as one!
I had a meeting with a like minded group in the context of the proposed Arms Rules 2015 a few weeks ago and one of them said that, individually we may never be able to make sufficient impact, no matter how many letters or emails we write to the Government. He suggested that large groups like the NRAI, now NAGRI and if any State or District shooting clubs or entities prevail upon them, then they may take notice and consider the suggestions made.
Even for the Courts to give any consideration something like a public interest litigation may be required to see ant benefit, that too one filed by a large group if that is even possible.
Otherwise things will remain the same.
Anand

[ankur_ank007]

Today's attack on Gurdaspur, Punjab is a proof that how important it is to arm law abiding citizen who take the situation in their hands whenever there is an emergency situation like this

[phagura]

I also want to contribute to the cause, please guide how I can ?

[dr.jayakumar]

I am in.anytime.
regards
dr.jk

[joydeepm]

Am in too guys .

[skumar]

I Support

[Dabuji]

I am in to support. Please let me know the details.



Sorry I didn't log in for a long time.