Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1290 (MP)

Akanksha Singh v. State of M. P.

2022-11-01

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2022
ORDER 1. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity, legality and propriety of the order dated 5.7.2017 (Annexure P/3) passed by the respondent No.1; whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of arms licence under section 14 (1) (b) (ii) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been rejected without passing any speaking order. 3. For the purpose of convenience, the impugned order dated 5.7.2017 (Annexure P/3) is reproduced below: e/; çns'k 'kklu x`g foHkkx ea=ky;] oYyHk Hkou] Hkksiky vkns'k Hkksiky] fnukad 5-7-2017 Øekad ,QŒ 16&212@2016@ch&1@nks&Jherh vkdka{kk flag iRuh Jh dqynhi] fuoklh dysDVj caxyk ds ihNs] ftyk Nrjiqj dks ,d voftZr cksj fiLVy@fjokYoj 'kL= yk;lsal lgefr ckor ÁLrko dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA vkosnd dks fdlh O;fDr@lewg fo'ks"k ls [krjk ugha gksus ls 'kklu dh uohu 'kL= uhfr ds varxZr ik=rk ugha vkrh gSA vr,o vk;q/k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14¼1½] [k¼2½ ds rgr ÁLrko vkSfpR;iw.kZ ,oa lek/kkudkjd u ik;s tkus ds QyLo:i iw.kZ fopkjksijkar vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA 2- Hkkjr ljdkj ds jkti= ljy Øekad 373] fnukad 24-07-2012 esa Ádkf'kr x`g ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk Øekad lkŒdkŒfuŒ 585 ¼v½ fnukad 24 tqykbZ] 2012 ds vuqlkj vfuok;Zr% ,uŒMhŒ,Œ,yŒ dk mi;ksx dj] ,Iyhds'ku vk;ŒMhŒ UkEcj tujsV djus ds ckn gh 'kL= yk;lsal ds vekU; ds vkns'k tkjh djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA e/; Áns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj ¼Jh nkl½ voj lfpo eŒÁŒ 'kklu] x`g foHkkx i`Œ ØŒ ,QŒ 16&212@2016@ch&1@nks] Hkksiky] fnukad 5-7-2017 Áfrfyfi%& 1- vk;qDr] lkxj laHkkx] lkxj dh vksj mud¢ i= Øekad 257@'kk[kk nks&1@2016] fnukad 23-02-2016 ds lanHkZ esa] lwpukFkZA 2- ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] ftyk Nrjiqj dh vksj muds Kkiu Øekad 55@'kL= 2016 fnukad 19-1-2016 ds lanHkZ esa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq Ásf"krA 3- fo'ks"k drZO;LFk vf/kdkjh] ekuuh; ea=h ¼x`g½ eŒÁŒ Hkksiky dh vksj lwpukFkZA 4- Jherh vkdka{kk flag iRuh Jh dqynhi] fuoklh dysDVj caxyk d¢ ihNs] ftyk Nrjiqj dh vksj lwpukFkZA 5- xkMZ QkbZyA voj lfpo eŒÁŒ 'kklu] x`g foHkkx 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a business woman running a College through registered Society and other business at Chhatarpur. Petitioner’s husband is also a Colonizer. Petitioner applied for issuance of Arms Licence “Pistol” in July, 2015 for protection of her property and person as having endanger of life from certain influential persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a business woman running a College through registered Society and other business at Chhatarpur. Petitioner’s husband is also a Colonizer. Petitioner applied for issuance of Arms Licence “Pistol” in July, 2015 for protection of her property and person as having endanger of life from certain influential persons. Since no action was being taken, the petitioner made complaint through CM-Helpline on 21.2.2017, but to no avail. Thereafter vide order dated 5.7.2017 (Annexure P/3) respondent No.1 rejected her application in a very cryptic manner without passing speaking order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily placed reliance on the provisions of section 14 of the Act, wherein the reasons for refusal of the arms licence has been specified. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the reasons have been specified in the order impugned and the same is contrary to the provisions of law, which is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that after due process of law, petitioner’s case had been referred to the competent authority for grant of licence and competent authority after considering the report submitted by the authorities and as per the provisions of Arms Act has found that petitioner is not entitled for licence. On reading of the impugned order also, it is crystal clear that the competent authority has rightly passed the impugned order pursuing no threat to the petitioner. Moreover, grant of arms licence is not a fundamental right of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, which is relevant for the purpose of this case is reproduced herein below: “14. Moreover, grant of arms licence is not a fundamental right of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, which is relevant for the purpose of this case is reproduced herein below: “14. Refusal of licences.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, licensing authority shall refuse to grant- (a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition; (b) a licence in any other case under chapter II,- (i) Where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe- (1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or (2) to be unsound mind, or (3) to be for any reasons unfit for a license under this Act; or (ii) Where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the Security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. (2) 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. (3) Where the licensing authority refuse to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.” 9. On perusal of the same, it is evident that provisions of section 14 of the Act have not been considered by the respondent while passing the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed in mechanical manner and the reasons stated in the impugned order cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Having perused the impugned order and upon consideration of the submissions advanced, the impugned order dated 5.7.2017 (Annexure P/3) is hereby set aside. The impugned order has been passed in mechanical manner and the reasons stated in the impugned order cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Having perused the impugned order and upon consideration of the submissions advanced, the impugned order dated 5.7.2017 (Annexure P/3) is hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation along with certified copy of the order passed today as well as relevant documents before the competent authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case such direction is complied with within the stipulated period, the competent authority of the respondents is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of ninety days thereafter. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.