Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 755 (MP)

Imran Khan v. State of M. P.

2021-11-23

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2021
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by respondent No.1 in case No. F 16-507/2013/B-1/two, by which the application for renewal of Arms Dealers Licence has been rejected on the ground that it was filed belatedly by five days. 2. It is the case of petitioner that he is an Arms Dealer License holder who was carrying on the business of sale and purchase of arms and ammunition. The Arm Dealers Licence issued to the petitioner was valid up to 31.12.2018. However, the petitioner could not make an application for renewal of the said Arms Licence within a period 60 days prior to expiry of Arms Dealer Licence and made an application for renewal on 5.11.2018 i.e. during the subsisting of licence but not prior to 60 days from the date of expiry of the Arms Dealer Licence. 3. Since the respondent/competent authority was sitting over the said application, therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P No.4371/2020 and by order dated 27.5.2020, the competent authority was directed to decide the application for renewal of the Arms Dealer Licence within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order. When the respondents did not decide the application for renewal, therefore, the petitioner filed a contempt petition before this Court which was registered as Conc No.1421/2020, and accordingly, by order dated 3.9.2020, this Court extended the time for deciding the application for renewal of Arms Dealer Licence. 4. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that by the impugned order dated 14.12.2020, the application has been rejected merely on the ground that the application should have been filed up to 31.10.2018 but since it was filed on 5.11.2018, therefore, the application was filed belatedly without any explanation. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that although the respondents themselves took two long years to decide the application and that too only when the petitioner approached this Court twice by filing writ petition as well as thereafter by filing a contempt petition, but the application has been rejected merely on account of that it was filed belatedly by 5 days delay. By referring to rule 24 (5) of the Arms Rules 2016, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that the Licensing Authority has a discretion to consider an application for renewal of the license even if it is made after the stipulated period and Licensing Authority has not assigned any reason as to why the delay of 5 days cannot be condoned. 5. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is submitted that the application for renewal of Arms Dealers Licence should have been filed upto 31.10.2018 whereas it was filed on 5.11.2018. Therefore, it was filed after the stipulated period. However, in view of rule 24 (5) of the Arms Rules 2016, it is fairly conceded that the Licensing Authority has a discretion to condone the delay or otherwise the application should have treated as one for grant of a fresh licence and the said power has not been exercised. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Rule 24 (5) of the Arms Rules, 2016 reads as under : “24. Renewal of licences.- (1)....xx.... (2)....xx.... (3)....xx.... (4)....xx.... (5) The licensing authority may consider an application for renewal of a licence, if the period between the date of its expiry and the date of application is not, in his opinion, unduly long with due regard to the circumstances of the case, and all renewal fees are paid; otherwise the application may be treated as one for grant of a fresh licence.” 8. From plain reading of above mentioned provision of law, it is clear that the licensing authority can consider an application for renewal of licence, if the period between the date of its expiry and the date of application is not, in his opinion, unduly long with due regard to the circumstances of the case. In other words, if the Authority is of the opinion that there is no deliberate and inordinate delay on the part of the aspirant in filing an application for renewal of the Arms Dealer Licence, then the same can be condoned. Further, as per rule 24 (5) of Arms Rules 2016, the delay can be condoned even if the application is filed after the expiry of the Arms Dealer Licence. 9. Further, as per rule 24 (5) of Arms Rules 2016, the delay can be condoned even if the application is filed after the expiry of the Arms Dealer Licence. 9. In the present case, undisputedly the application was filed prior to expiry of the Arms Dealer Licence and there is only a delay of five days in filing the application, whereas respondents themselves took two years to decide the application and that too when the petitioner approached this Court twice by filing a writ petition and thereafter by filing a contempt petition. 10. Be that whatever it may. 11. Since the respondent/competent authority has failed to exercise its discretion as provided under rule 24 (5) of the Arms Rules 2016, accordingly, respondent/competent authority is directed to reconsider the application of petitioner and decide the same on merits/entitlement without adhering to the question of delay. The said exercise be completed within a period of 15 days from today as respondents are being represented by its counsel. It shall be the duty of State counsel to communicate the order to the respondent/competent authority for its compliance. 12. At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that since the application for renewal of Arms Dealer Licence was filed on 5.11.2018 and petitioner has lost his valuable three long years on account of the fact that respondent No.1 was sitting over his application, therefore, respondent No.1 be directed that in case if the Arms Dealer Licence is renewed, then the same should be renewed for a further period of five years and not from the date of expiry of the earlier Arms Dealer Licence. 13. It is directed that while deciding the application of petitioner, the respondent No.1 shall also consider this aspect and pass an order on this aspect also. 14. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. 15. Let a typed copy of this order be also given to Shri Deepak Khot, counsel for State, for communicating the same to the Competent/Licensing Authority.