JUDGMENT : 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner company has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for the grant of the following relief’s: (a) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing Order No. T 1000 dated 6th May 2005 issued by the respondent No.4 and also order dated 23.04.2006 issued by respondent No.5. (b) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to admit re-testing of the guns manufactured by the petitioner. (c) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to approve such guns after retesting manufactured by the petitioner, as fulfilled the conditions under law more particularly complying with the procedure for proof of Shot Guns in India (Revised Sep 1993) issued by the respondent No.2. 2. The pith and core of the petition of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an industrial unit engaged in the manufacturing of arms and ammunition for which a valid license has been granted in its favour, which was renewed from time to time and is valid up to December, 2006. The petitioner concern has the approval for manufacturing of 2400 guns per annum as per the endorsement dated 22.03.1993 made on the license of the petitioner, whereby the grant of manufacturing of ML/BL guns qua the petitioner-concern has been re-fixed on the directions of this Court. The rules governing the subject make it apparently clear that in case any defect is found in the manufacturing of barrels by the Proof Testing House, the same is required to be intimated to the manufacturing house who is entitled to re-set the barrel after the rectification of the defects and is entitled to do so on any number of occasions within a period two years from its re-testing. The respondents have followed this procedure all along and have on a number of occasions accepted the guns for re-testing and even approved the same. The respondents have followed this procedure all along and have on a number of occasions accepted the guns for re-testing and even approved the same. The petitioner was taken by surprise on the receipt of the communication No. T1000 of 2005 dated 06.05.2005 attached to the petition as Annexure-A, impugned in this petition, wherein it has been stated that the licensees are not permitted to manufacture another gun barrel in lieu of the rejected one. This communication has taken away the right of the petitioner/manufacturer to submit the guns for re-testing. After the issuance of the said letter, the respondents have refused to accept the guns for re-testing which is contrary to the law and cannot be justified on any ground whatsoever. Even after the communication of the order impugned, Annexure-A to the petition, the respondents have allowed the re-testing of guns manufactured by other manufacturers, as is evident from Annexures-D1, D2 and D3 attached to the petition. In doing so, the respondents have not only acted against the provisions of law, but have also treated the petitioner on a different pedestal when compared to the other similarly situated persons, which is contrary to the law of the land. The respondents are obliged under the law to act in a legal and justifiable manner and cannot discriminate between the similarly circumstanced persons. The petitioner has suffered a heavy loss because the guns/barrels, which have been rejected, have not been taken for re-testing which is unfair, unreasonable and totally illegal. In the end, the petitioner concern has submitted that the respondents are liable to be commanded to approve such guns after re-testing in compliance with the procedure for proof of Short Guns in India (Revised in Sep 1993) issued by the respondent No. 2. The petition of the petitioner is supported by an affidavit, and allied documents. 3. In their objections, the respondents have resisted and controverted the petition of the petitioner on the grounds, inter alia, that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Rule-22 of the Procedure for proof of Shot Guns in India, which specifically provides that the licensee shall not manufacture another gun barrel in lieu of a rejected one. The barrels received for proof by the proof house have a length between 20 inches and 32 inches. The barrels received for proof by the proof house have a length between 20 inches and 32 inches. The common defects under which the barrels are rejected by the proof houses are failure in gauging, bad condition of barrel bore and brazing, missing of marking of manufacturers initial and year of manufacture, breakages of vital components and bursting of barrels. The rectifiable rejected barrels are recommended for rectification as per Rule-13. These should be rectified within a period of 2 years but in a case where the barrel has bursted during the proof test, it has been clarified by the answering respondent No.2 vide order No. 62063/ISAK/DGQA/ARM-10 dated 27th July, 2006 (copy enclosed as Annexure-‘A’) that such barrels may be submitted for re-testing provided the location of bursting is beyond 50.8 cms (20 inches) from breech end and rectification has been done by reducing the length of the barrels within the minimum permitted length i.e., 50.8 cms (20 inches). However, no fresh manufactured barrel is allowed in lieu of barrel rejected due to bursting at any location of the minimum permitted length of the barrel. It is worthwhile to mention that a burst barrel is finally rejected and cannot be rectified anymore. Hence, the question of resubmission of fresh manufactured barrels in lieu of such rejected barrels does not arise and the case of the petitioner has been rightly rejected vide order impugned dated 6th May, 2005 which has been passed strictly in conformity with Rule-22 of the Procedure for Proof of Shot Guns in India. In this view of the matter the present writ petition does not survive and deserves dismissal. 4. Heard and considered. 5. The petitioner company has the approval for manufacturing of 2400 guns per annum as per the endorsement dated 22nd March 1993 made on the licence. This quota for manufacturing of ML/BL Guns qua the petitioner-company has been re-fixed and determined on the directions of the Court. As per the provisions of the Arms Act, the Rules framed thereunder and the Procedure of Proof of Shot Guns in India (Revised in Sep 1993), the guns after their manufacture by the authorized units, are required to be sent for proof testing to various centers delineated by the Ministry of Defence. It is only after the accord of the approval of proof test of the guns by the concerned authority, that the same are marketed. It is only after the accord of the approval of proof test of the guns by the concerned authority, that the same are marketed. As per the para 13 laying down the Procedure for Proof of Shot Guns in India (Revised in Sept 1993) issued vide Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi’s letter No. 22/16/76/GPA.V dated 06th March, 1978, in case any defect is found in the gun/barrel by the Proof Testing Centre, the licensee is eligible for submitting his gun barrel for re-testing after the rectification of the defects without any limit on any number of occasions provided that necessary rectifications are completed within a period of two years from the date of the communication of the failed test results issued by the concerned proof house. Para 13 of the Procedure for Proof Testing of Shot Guns in India, which is relevant to the issue reads as under:- “The Officers-in Charge of Proof House shall endeavor to communicate all defects in gun barrels in one communication and licensees shall be eligible to submit gun barrels for proof test after rectification of defects without any limit on the number of occasions for such submission provided that necessary rectifications are completed within a period of two years from the date of communication of failed test results issued by the concerned Proof house.” 6. Similarly, Para 22 of the procedure aforesaid provides that the manufacturing unit will not be entitled to manufacture fresh barrels in lieu of the rejected barrels which are finally rejected by the Proof Test House during a calendar year. It is reproduced herein-below verbatim: “The serial numbers of guns barrels to be entered in Col.1 of the Gun Manufacturing Register referred to in paragraph 2 of this letter are required to be stamped on barrels and action bodies of DBPL, SBBL and ML weapons in accordance with the provisions of Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 1962. The serial numbers intended for a particular year, representing authorized quota of manufacture, shall be noted in Col.2 of the Gun Manufacturing Register at the beginning of each calendar year and remaining columns of the Register shall be completed in respect of each serial number according to progress made in completion of guns. The serial numbers intended for a particular year, representing authorized quota of manufacture, shall be noted in Col.2 of the Gun Manufacturing Register at the beginning of each calendar year and remaining columns of the Register shall be completed in respect of each serial number according to progress made in completion of guns. In case any of the gun barrels manufactured during a calendar year is finally rejected by proof house, the licensee shall not manufacture another gun barrel in lieu of the rejected gun barrel.” 7. From a bare perusal of the rules cited above, it is clear that in case any defect is found in the manufactured barrel by the proof testing house, the same is required to be intimated to the manufacturing house, who, in-turn is entitled to re-submit the barrel after the rectification of the defects for re-testing without any restriction on the number of occasions for such submission within a period of two years. The above provisions read in conjunction make it abundantly clear that it is on the failure of guns retested within a period of two years, that the same will entail rejection. Communication No. T1000 dated 6th May 2005, impugned in the writ petition, provides that the barrels which have been rejected will lead to the non-manufacturing of another barrel by the manufacturer. It needs to be said that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi’s letter no. 22/106/76/GPA.V dated 06th March, 1978 has prescribed the procedure for proof of shot guns and the same is required to be followed by the respondents in letter and spirit. The respondents are not entitled to change or amend the procedure for proof of shot guns on their own in view of the fact that the revised policy dealing with the Procedure for Proof of Shot Gun in India issued in January, 2011 has been promulgated by the respondent No.3 in breach of the procedure laid down by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and the amendment carried out in the procedure under the head ‘Technical Section’ has been made without any approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. 8. The respondents cannot take refuge under the revised procedure for proof testing of shot guns for the reason that it does not have any sanctity of law. 8. The respondents cannot take refuge under the revised procedure for proof testing of shot guns for the reason that it does not have any sanctity of law. It has been revised without the approval of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, and, therefore, such a revised procedure cannot be legally acted upon in any manner, as a corollary to which the respondents are under a legal obligation to re-test the rejected shot guns manufactured by the petitioner as per the procedure prescribed by the Government of India, Minister of Home Affairs, New Delhi’s letter No. 22/16/78/GPA.V dated 06th March, 1978 (Appendix-“A”). 9. After the issuance of the communication dated 06.05.2005 to the petitioner, impugned here in this petition, the respondent No.4 issued a communication No.T1000 dated 05th October, 2006, whereunder the petitioner has been informed that burst barrels may be submitted for retesting provided the location of bursting is beyond 50.8 cm (20 inches) from breech end and rectification has been done by reducing the length of the barrels within the minimum permitted length i.e., 50.8 cm (20 inches). This letter dated 5th Oct. 2006 has been issued in suppression of all the previous letters on the issue. This letter has been placed on record by the respondents along with their objections/reply to the maintainability of the writ petition. The respondents under the guise of the aforesaid letter have tried to create and compound confusion in the case projected by the petitioner. 10. The respondents have after the issuance of the impugned letter refused to accept the rejected guns even for re-testing although the respondents have allowed the retesting of the guns manufactured by other manufacturers as gets revealed from the perusal of the Annexures-D1 to D3 attached to the petition. In doing so, the respondents have treated the petitioner differently with the similarly situated persons, which is contrary to the law. Annexure D-1 attached to the petition is a communication dated 22nd June, 2005 of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence (DGQA), Senior Quality Assurance Estt. (ARMTS), Jabalpur, sent to the M/S Friends Co., Jammu and the said communication provides the following details: Registered Nos. Annexure D-1 attached to the petition is a communication dated 22nd June, 2005 of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence (DGQA), Senior Quality Assurance Estt. (ARMTS), Jabalpur, sent to the M/S Friends Co., Jammu and the said communication provides the following details: Registered Nos. of Guns rejected after proof Type of Guns Year of Manufacture Licence No. & Year against which guns proved Reasons for rejection 24392, 24398, 24457, 24458, 24471, 24527, 24546 = 07 DBBL 24404 = 01 DBBL 24446, 24557, 24634, 24689 = 04 DBBL 24700 = 01 DBBL 24677, 24688 = 02 DBBL 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 73/IX/78 LEFT CHAMBER BURST BOTH CHAMBER BURST RIGHT CHAMBER BURST RIGHT BARREL BURST LEFT BARREL BURST Appendix-A attached to the aforesaid communication provides the details of the registered numbers of Guns found unfit for proof and the reasons of rejection besides other details. It reads: Registered Nos. of Guns accepted after proof Type of Guns Year of Manufacture Manufacturing Licence No. against which guns were tested New guns re-tested 24342 To 24391, 24393 To 24397, 24399 To 24402, 24405 To 24445, 24447 To 24456, 24459 To 24470, 24472 To 24526, 24528 To 24545, 24547 To 24556, 24558 To 24633, 24635 To 24676, 24678 To 24687, 24690 To 24699, 24701 To 24735 =379 DBBL DBBL 2004 73/IX/78 NEW GUNS 11. Annexure-D2 annexed to the writ petition is a Certificate of Gun Barrels despatched for proof test. It contains, inter alia, the name of Licensee and Form IX Licence number. Besides this, the Certificate provides the total number of guns barrel which have been despatched already to Proof House (in words and figures) for proof test for the first time, which is 479. It also gives the particulars of guns barrels to be despatched after rectification. 12. Annexure-D3 appended to the writ petition is a communication dated 3rd February, 2006 of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Senior Quality Assurance Estt (ARMTS), Jabalpur, sent to M/S Friends Co. Jammu. It states that the following stores have been received against the transport permit on 03.01.2006: (a) DBBL QTY 299 Nos. (b) SBBL QTY 30 Nos. Appendix-A attached to Annexure-D3 provides as follows: (A) Registered Nos. Jammu. It states that the following stores have been received against the transport permit on 03.01.2006: (a) DBBL QTY 299 Nos. (b) SBBL QTY 30 Nos. Appendix-A attached to Annexure-D3 provides as follows: (A) Registered Nos. of Guns found unfit for proof Type of Guns Year of Manufacture Manufacturing Licence No. Against which Guns inspected Reasons for rejection 25324 TOTAL = 01 DBBL DBBL 2005 73/IX/78 BOTH BARREL RUSTY INTERNALLY (B) Registered Nos. of Guns rejected after proof Type of Guns Year of Manufacture Licence No. & Year against which guns proved Reasons for rejection 25241, 25349, 25416, 25424, 25425, 25429, 25437, 25442, 25493, 25502 TOTAL = 10 DBBL 25448 TOTAL = 01 DBBL 25341 TOTAL = 01 DBBL 25422, 25495 TOTAL = 02 DBBL 25485 TOTAL = 01 DBBL DBBL DBBL DBBL DBBL DBBL 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 73/IX/78 73/IX/78 73/IX/78 73/IX/78 73/IX/78 ACTION GAP HIGH RIGHT CHAMBER BURST RIGHT BARREL BURST ACTION LOCK WELDING BROKEN HAND GUARD WELDED PORTION BROKEN (C) Registered Nos. accepted after proof Type of Guns Year of Manufacture Manufacturing Licence No. against which guns were tested New guns re-tested 25215 To 25240, 25242 To 25323, 25325 To 25340, 25342 To 25348, 25350 To 25415, 25417 To 25421, 25423, 25426 To 25428, 25430 To 25436, 25438 To 25441, 25443 To 25447, 25449 To 25484, 25486 To 25492, 25494, 25496 To 25501, 25503, 25504 TOTAL = 274 DBBL 25505 TO 25534 total = 30 SBBL 24392, 24457, 24458, 24471, 24546, 24557, 24634, 24677, 24688 Total = 9 DBBL DBBL SBBL DBRT 2005 2005 2004 73/IX/78 NEW GUNS NEW GUNS RE-TESTED 13. Discrimination is a treatment that restricts the members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are bestowed unto the other similarly circumstanced group based on irrational decision making. The Constitution of India guarantees protection of life and personal liberty to one and all. It provides adequate safeguards against an arbitrary decision. There can be no inequality between the similarly circumstanced individuals or classes. Article 14 of the Constitution of India has received the authoritative interpretation from the Supreme Court of India in Charanjitlal v. Union of India, AIR (38) 1951 S.C. 41. It provides adequate safeguards against an arbitrary decision. There can be no inequality between the similarly circumstanced individuals or classes. Article 14 of the Constitution of India has received the authoritative interpretation from the Supreme Court of India in Charanjitlal v. Union of India, AIR (38) 1951 S.C. 41. The effect of the majority decision in that case is that while Parliament or Legislature has wide discretion in creating classes on which the legislation will operate, no classification is permissible which is arbitrary and which is made without any basis and that a proper classification must always rest upon some difference and must bear a reasonable and just relation to the things in respect of which it is proposed. Mukherjea J. with whose views on this point the learned Chief Justice of India agreed in explaining the law on the subject at pp.57-58 of that Report observed in particular: “In other words, there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is the same.” The observations of Pazl Ali J. at pp.44-45 of that report are also in support of this view. 14. In the instant case, the petitioners concern could not be treated differently. Its case could not have been treated as a sui-generis case and measured on a different parameter when on the face of Annexures-D1, D2 and D3 the case of a concern, as detailed above, similar to that of the petitioner, engaged in the manufacturing of guns has been treated and tested on different scales. His case has been accepted on the same grounds on which the case of the petitioner has been rejected. Ours is a welfare state where discrimination as regards the same subject matter and under the same circumstances is not permissible. 15. Viewed in the context of all that has been said and done above, the petition of the petitioner concern is allowed, as a corollary to which, the order No. T 1000 dated 6th May 2005 issued by respondent No. 4 and the order dated 23.04.2006 issued by respondent No. 5 are quashed. The respondents are commanded to admit the guns manufactured by the petitioner for re-testing in accordance with the Procedure for Proof of Shot Guns in India (Revised Sep. 1993) issued by the respondent No.2. The respondents are commanded to admit the guns manufactured by the petitioner for re-testing in accordance with the Procedure for Proof of Shot Guns in India (Revised Sep. 1993) issued by the respondent No.2. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of accordingly along with connected MP.