Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 63 (JHR)

Madan Mohan Roy v. State of Jharkhand

2018-01-09

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : Rajesh Shanker, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka as the respondent No. 5 in the present writ petition. 2. Let necessary insertion in the cause title of the present writ petition be made in course of the day. 3. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for renewal of the petitioner's arm (pistol) license bearing No. 01/2009 (Jamtara P.S) w.e.f. 01.01.2013 onwards, as the renewal of the said arm license has already been made till the year 2012. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 179 dated 25.03.2014 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition), issued under the signature of the respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner's arm (pistol) license bearing No. 01/2009 (Jamtara P.S) has been suspended till further orders and he has been directed to appear before the said authority to clarify as to the pistol of the petitioner comes under which category of arms. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was duly issued arm (pistol) license by the order of the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka on 28.07.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased a pistol having 7.62 mm Bore and the entry of the same was made in the arm license of the petitioner by the respondent No. 3. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 vide letter No. 604 dated 23.12.2010, made recommendation for extension of the territorial limits of the petitioner's arm license and, thereafter, vide letter No. 3252 dated 18.08.2011, issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, the permission for territorial extension of the petitioner's arm (pistol) license bearing No. 01/2009 (Jamtara P.S) was granted. The petitioner superannuated from service on 31.03.2013 as the Superintending Engineer, Waterways Circle, Ranchi. It is further submitted that the petitioner originally belongs to District-Buxar (Bihar) and accordingly, after superannuation, he planned to settle there. In the meantime, there was requirement of renewal of the said arm license, which was renewed till the year 2012. As such, the petitioner made an application for renewal of the said arm license before the respondent No. 3 and deposited the requisite fee for the same, however, no order for renewal of the petitioner's license was passed by the respondents-authorities for a long period. As such, the petitioner made an application for renewal of the said arm license before the respondent No. 3 and deposited the requisite fee for the same, however, no order for renewal of the petitioner's license was passed by the respondents-authorities for a long period. Finally, vide the impugned order dated 25.03.2014, the respondent No. 3 suspended the arm license of the petitioner till further orders and directed him to submit his pistol to the concerned Police Station. The petitioner was also directed to clarify as to his pistol comes under which category of arms. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted his pistol to Jamtara Police Station on 10.06.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily argues that according to the respondents, the petitioner's pistol having 7.62 mm Bore comes under the prohibited category whereas in fact, the said Bore comes under the non-prohibited category. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on various provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 as well as the notifications issued by the Central Government and submits that 7.62 mm Bore is a non-prohibited Bore. 5. Learned J.C. to A.G. while referring to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submits that 7.62 mm Bore comes under the prohibited category for general public and as such the petitioner's arm license cannot be renewed. 6. On perusal of the impugned order dated 25.03.2014, issued under the signature of the respondent No. 3, it transpires that the petitioner was asked to appear before the respondent No. 3 to satisfy him regarding the category of the pistol. However, no determination has been made by any respondent-authority as to whether 7.62 mm Bore falls under the prohibited or non-prohibited category. Since the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka (respondent No. 5) happens to be the sanctioning authority for issuance of license of pistol/revolver, I find it appropriate to remit the present case to the respondent No. 5 to make determination as to whether the petitioner's pistol having 7.62 mm Bore comes under the prohibited or non-prohibited category of weapon for the civilians, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. While making such determination, the respondent No. 5 shall provide due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/his representative. While making such determination, the respondent No. 5 shall provide due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/his representative. On such determination, if the respondent No. 5 finds that the petitioner's pistol having 7.62 mm Bore comes under the non-prohibited category of the arms/weapons for the civilians, the follow up action for renewal of the petitioner's arm license shall be taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 within a period of two weeks thereafter. 7. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms with the aforesaid observations and directions. 8. I.A. No. 4766/2016 also stands disposed of accordingly.