Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 961 (HP)

Vibhu Banel v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-05-27

SANJAY KAROL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. In this petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) That the respondents may be directed to produce total record of the case; (ii) That after setting aside the order of rejection vide Annexure P-10 and Annexure P-14, the respondents may be directed to allow the prayer of the petitioner, so that he may be permitted to carry his pistol as well as his gun through out India.” 2. Petitioner who owns and possesses a .32 bore pistol has been allowed to carry the same only within the State of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh. Annexure P-10 is the order rejecting the petitioner’s request for issuance of a gun license with All India Validity. His subsequent request for reexamination also stands rejected vide impugned order dated 22.02.2011 (Annexure P-14). 3. It is contended that petitioner stands unfairly discriminated inasmuch as some of the persons, referred to in Annexure P-13, stand issued arms licenses, on all India basis. The contention is factually incorrect. Licenses to such persons stood issued earlier in point in time and as per prevalent laws. 4. That petitioner owns and possesses the arm in question, for which license stands issued by the Licensing Authority of the State of Himachal Pradesh, is not in dispute. His case stands rejected primarily on the ground that in terms of instructions dated 31.03.2010, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, licenses having All India Validity, at the state level, can be issued only to the following classified categories of officials/persons: (i) Sitting Union Ministers/MPs; (ii) Personnel of Military, Para-Military; (iii) Officers of All India Services: (iv) Officers with liability to serve anywhere in India; and (v) Sports persons. 5. Undisputedly, petitioner does not fall within any one of such categories. There is no challenge to the said notification either. It is also not the petitioner’s case that he has approached the Central Government and his case stands rejected. 6. Petitioner is an Advocate by profession and occasionally travels outside the State in the course of discharge of his professional duties and obligations. But it is not his specific case that there is any threat to his life from any quarter. Even though he is handling cases which are criminal in nature, but none the less, there is no threat perception to his life and/or property. But it is not his specific case that there is any threat to his life from any quarter. Even though he is handling cases which are criminal in nature, but none the less, there is no threat perception to his life and/or property. No complaint what so ever stands filed with any of the authorities. 7. The Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) clearly prohibits any person from either acquiring/holding in possession or carrying, inter alia, any firearm, except in accordance with a license so issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under. Section 3 of the Act clearly lays down such restrictions. 8. The firearm i.e. .32 bore pistol falls within the definition of “arms” so defined under sub-Section 1 (c) of Section 2 of the Act. Hence the requirement of a license. 9. Now Chapter III of the Act regulates grant of licenses. The application, in terms of Section 13, is required to be made to the Licensing Authority so defined under sub-Section (1)(f) of Section 2 of the Act. The Authority has a right to refuse such grant and reject the application. The Act itself mandates licenses not to be issued to certain category of persons. But then petitioner is not one of them. The Act does provide for a statutory appeal, which in the instant case, has also not been resorted to. 10. Be that as it may, one finds that in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 44 of the Act, the Central Government itself framed Rules known as the Arms Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). These Rules specifically empower the Central Government to impose restrictions with regard to the validity of the licenses outside the territorial limits of the State in which it is granted. 11. Thus, the action of the Central Government in issuing the notification, cannot be said to be ultra vires. The restrictions imposed for issuing licenses on All India Validity cannot be said to be unreasonable, more so, in the light of no threat perception to the petitioner. There is nothing to demonstrate that with the restricted grant, petitioner’s right of livelihood, in any manner, stands affected. Respondents cannot be said to have violated any one of his fundamental right, particularly Articles 19 or 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. There is nothing to demonstrate that with the restricted grant, petitioner’s right of livelihood, in any manner, stands affected. Respondents cannot be said to have violated any one of his fundamental right, particularly Articles 19 or 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. Hence, under these circumstances, present petition devoid of any merit is dismissed. Petition stands disposed of accordingly, as also pending application(s), if any.