Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 739 (PAT)

Sweetty Kumari @ Rekha v. State Of Bihar

2001-08-16

R.M.PRASAD

body2001
Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 5-2-2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna (respondent No. 3) in Arms Misc. Case No. 2/99, contained in Annexure-1, by which he has rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of licence of N.P. Bore Rifle. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, on 9-8-1995 she filed an application for grant of licence of N.P. Bore Rifle before respondent No. 3, on which the District Arms Magistrate, Patna called for a report from the Officer Incharge, Patrakarangar Police Station on 19-9-1995. The Officer Incharge, in turn, made recommendation for grant of said arms licence on 20-8-1996, which was also forwarded and recommended by the Dy. S.P. Sadar on 25-2-1997 (Annexure-4). Petitioners further case is that when respondent No. 3 did not dispose of her application for grant of, arms licence, she filed writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 5216 of 1999, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 5-7-1999 (Annexure-5) directing the respondent No. 3 to dispose of the application for grant of arms licence of the petitioner, if any, in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order. Petitioner filed contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 1415 of 2000 for compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court and during the pendency of the contempt petition respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of licence of N. P. Bore Rifle. 3. It appears from the impugned order (Annexure-1) that the Respondent No. 3 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the annual income of the petitioner is about Rs. sixty thousand only, which is apparent from the Income-tax return submitted by the petitioner herself and, prima facie, he did not find any specific reason for the security of a person having such meagre income and that the petitioner did not mention any specific reason neither in her application nor in her rejoinder for grant of arms licence. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner, in fact, submitted a proof of annual income of Rs. 1,10,000.00 and the District Magistrate, Patna (respondent No. 3) has erred in saying that the annual income of the petitioner is only Rs. 60,000.00 . 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner, in fact, submitted a proof of annual income of Rs. 1,10,000.00 and the District Magistrate, Patna (respondent No. 3) has erred in saying that the annual income of the petitioner is only Rs. 60,000.00 . He further submitted that in terms of Sec. 14(2) of the Indian Arms Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the licensing authority cannot refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such persons does not own or possess sufficient property. 5. No counter-affidavit has been filed, however, the District Magistrate had personally appeared when the matter was heard and the order was reserved. It was submitted by him that no body can claim grant of licence as a matter of right. According to him, the Central Government has issued instruction laying down guidelines for grant of arms licence and as per the guidelines the petitioner is not entitled to claim licence as a matter of right. It is submitted that the licensing authority has been given wide discretion in the matter of grant of licence. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that the grant of licence for carrying arms is at the discretion of the licensing authority and there is no fundamental right to carry arms and right to carry arms is a privilege conferred by the Act and other similar statutes. Under Sec. 14 of the Act the law mandates a refusal to grant licence where the licensing authority has reasons to believe that the application for grant of licence is for any reason mentioned therein unfit for being granted licence under the Act. 6. In the present case, the reason assigned are that the annual income of the petitioner is about Rs. sixty thousand only, which is apparent from the Income-tax return submitted by her, and that no specific reason for her insecurity has been given. The said reasons are not at all covered by any of them as mentioned in Sec. 14. In my opinion, the exercise of discretionary power does not mean that the authority can act by ignoring the provisions which provides for the grounds of refusal, otherwise such power will be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. The said reasons are not at all covered by any of them as mentioned in Sec. 14. In my opinion, the exercise of discretionary power does not mean that the authority can act by ignoring the provisions which provides for the grounds of refusal, otherwise such power will be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Khelawan Misra V/s. State of U.P. and Anr. -- dealing with a case where the applicant sought licence for rifle and it was refused on the ground that his need was not genuine, held that sued a ground did not fall under any of the Clauses under Sec. 14 to justify the refusal, and that even though under Sec. 13(3)(b) of the Act, the authority was to be satisfied that the applicant had a good reason for obtaining it, as no specific power was conferred on him under Sec. 14 to refuse the licence on that ground, refusal would be unsustainable. Thus, in my opinion, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is fit to be quashed. 8. The writ application is, thus, allowed and the impugned order, contained in Annexure-1 is quashed, respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and dispose of her application for grant of licence accordingly within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.