Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 484 (KAR)

RAJA AFROZ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2004-07-29

K.L.MANJUNATH

body2004
K. L. MANJUNATH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a resident of Bangalore. The petitioner filed an application on 7. 8. 2000 requesting the second respondent to grant an Arms license to hold a revolver. The request of the petitioner has been rejected by the second respondent on 29. 7. 2002 which endorsement is produced as Annexure-A to the Writ Petition. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection of his application, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act of 1959 before the first respondent on 16. 8. 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by him. Till today, the said appeal is not considered by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court to direct the respondent to issue an Arms license to acquire a revolver. ( 2 ) THE respondents have filed a detailed counter. In paragraph 5 of the counter, the respondents have taken a stand that the Deputy Commissioner of Police did not recommended the case of the petitioner favourably on the ground that the financial stability and income tax returns of the petitioner does not inspire the authority to grant license. ( 3 ) IT is also stated that there are no adverse remarks against the petitioner. Considering the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (East), the respondent's Counsel requests the Court to dismiss the petition. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) WHAT is required to be considered by this Court is as to whether the second respondent can refuse to grant an Arms License based on the financial stability and on the quantum of income tax payable by a person. ( 6 ) SECTION 13 of the Arms Act, 1959, deals with how an application filed by a person has to be considered by a Licensing Authority. ( 6 ) SECTION 13 of the Arms Act, 1959, deals with how an application filed by a person has to be considered by a Licensing Authority. Sub-Section (3) of Section 13 reads as hereundcr:- " (3) The licensing authority shall grant (a) a licence under Section 3 where the licence is required ( i) by a citizen of India in respect of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to be used for protection or sport or in respect of a muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide crop protection; provided that where having regard to the circumstances of any case, the licensing authority is satisfied that a muzzle loading gun will not be sufficient for crop protection, the licensing authority may grant a licence in respect of any other smooth bore gun as aforesaid for such protection, or (ii) in respect of a point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle to be used for target practice by a member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognized by the Central Government; (b) a licence under Section 3 in any other case or a licence under Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, section 10 or Section 12, if the licensing authority is satisfied that the person by whom the licence is required has a good reason for obtaining the same. " ( 7 ) SECTION 14 of the Act deals under what circumstances, Licensing Authority can refuse the license. ( 8 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 14 reads as hereunder: "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. " ( 9 ) FROM reading of these two sub-sections, it is clear that a Licensing Authority shall have no right to refuse the license merely on the ground that the applicant does not own or possess sufficient property. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, the reasons assigned by the respondents are that the petitioner does not possess sufficient turnover and income tax return filed by him as low. The petitioner is running a security Agency and he has to deploy many security personnel to different places pursuant to contract awarded to him. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, the reasons assigned by the respondents are that the petitioner does not possess sufficient turnover and income tax return filed by him as low. The petitioner is running a security Agency and he has to deploy many security personnel to different places pursuant to contract awarded to him. The petitioner is also required to monitor the work of his employees to ascertain whether the Security personnel deployed by him in different places are discharging the duties round the clock and that he has to watch and observe the performance of his employees. ( 11 ) IN view of sub-section (2) of Section 14, the respondents cannot refuse to grant a license to a person on the ground that he is not having required business turnover and there are no norms fixed either under the Act or under the Rules, what should be the turnover of a person to seek a license under the Arms Act, 1959. When such conditions are not imposed either under the Act or under the Rules, the respondents cannot reject the application of the petitioner. The respondents have powers to reject the application for grant of license, only if the Authority is of the opinion that the grant of license will not be in the public interest as envisaged under sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Act. It is not the vested right of a rich or poor person to possess an arm license. Every citizen is entitled to possess arm if really he is in need of the same for his protection. The act does not differentiate between a rich and the poor, what is required to be considered is whether there is genuine need and whether grant of license is not in the interest of the public. Therefore, on the ground of financial stability, income tax returns or possessing of a particular quantity of wealth or property is not the criteria to grant license. Therefore, action of the respondent in refusing to grant license on the ground that business turn over of the petitioner does not inspire the authority to grant license has to be held as bad in law. Every citizen has a right to demand the authorities to grant license if really is in need of a weapon for his self-protection. Therefore, action of the respondent in refusing to grant license on the ground that business turn over of the petitioner does not inspire the authority to grant license has to be held as bad in law. Every citizen has a right to demand the authorities to grant license if really is in need of a weapon for his self-protection. It is the duty of the authorities to protect all citizen as long as such applications are not filed with an oblique motive and not in the interest of general public. Since the petitioner's appeal is pending before the second respondent, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from today. The second respondent while disposing the appeal of the petitioner shall follow the observations made by the Court as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, this Writ Petition is allowed in part.