Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 292 (ALL)

Rajesh Singh Sengar v. State of U. P.

2022-03-03

MANISH MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT : MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. In pursuance to directions issued earlier, Mr. Ravindra Kumar District Magistrate, Unnao and Mr. Narendra Singh Officer-In-Charge, Arms/Additional District Magistrate, Unnao are present. 3. Petition has been filed against order dated 22nd March, 2021 rejecting petitioner's application for registration/renewal of arms licence at his present address in Uttar Pradesh bearing Licence No. 8820/DM/SSA Revolver No. S2252 N.P. bore. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed in Indian Air Force and was issued a licence for the aforesaid revolver in the year 2012 on 27th April, 2012 from District Sirsa, State of Haryana. He subsequently took voluntary retirement from service and started residing in district Unnao in State of U.P. in 2014. It is submitted that arms licence was issued by the District Magistrate, Sirsa, Haryana up till 2015 which was thereafter renewed up till 2016. 4. It is submitted that in view of the fact that petitioner subsequently started residing in State of U.P. he gave an application dated 12th January, 2015 to the District Magistrate for registration of the arms licence in State of U.P. It is submitted that subsequently correspondence ensued between the District Magistrate, Unnao and District Magistrate Sirsa regarding details of petitioner's licence and queries of the District Magistrate, Unnao were satisfied by District Magistrate, Sirsa whereafter petitioner's licence was renewed by the District Magistrate Unnao from 2016 till 2018 and thereafter till 25th March, 2021 vide order dated 6th June, 2018. 5. It is further submitted that due to licence expiring in March, 2021 petitioner gave another application to the District Magistrate, Unnao on 15th March, 2021 for renewal of licence but the District Magistrate Unnao instead of renewing rejected it on 22nd March, 2021 which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 6. It is submitted that the aforesaid order was challenged in the present writ petition on 14th December, 2021 whereafter prior to filing of counter affidavit, the District Magistrate, Unnao vide letter dated 7th January, 2022 recommended cancellation of petitioner's licence to the District Magistrate Sirsa on account of the fact that petitioner's renewal has already expired in March, 2021. 7. It is submitted that in pursuance to aforesaid recommendation, the District Magistrate, Sirsa vide order dated 7th February, 2022 has thereafter suspended petitioner's arms licence. 8. 7. It is submitted that in pursuance to aforesaid recommendation, the District Magistrate, Sirsa vide order dated 7th February, 2022 has thereafter suspended petitioner's arms licence. 8. It has been further submitted that once petitioner has shifted his place of residence from Haryana and gave an application before the District Magistrate, Unnao intimating the change of residence on 12th January, 2015, the said authority was under statutory duty in terms of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Arms Act, 1959 to register petitioner's arms licence in the State of U.P. and to issue a new licence book. As such it is submitted that any default in new registration of petitioner's arms licence in State of U.P. and its subsequent renewal is owing to default on the part of opposite parties themselves. It is further submitted that once petitioner's arms licnece was renewed up till March, 2021 an application for further renewal was also given prior to expiring of the renewal period, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have renewed arms licence without requiring the District Magistrate Sirsa to cancel the arms licence. 9. Learned State Counsel upon instructions refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner. It is submitted that initial arms licence of petitioner was issued by the District Magistrate, Sirsa in terms of Schedule II to the Arms Rules, 2016. The initial period of licence was only up till 2015 whereafter it was extended under Item III of Schedule II (Rule 5 of the Arms Rules) for the whole of India by the State Government concerned. It is submitted that once the arms licence of petitioner had been extended for the whole of India, it could have been renewed only by the District Magistrate concerned that is the District Magistrate, Sirsa since subsequent to his change in place of residence, no re-registration of petitioner's arms licence took place and only renewal had taken place. It is submitted that renewal of petitioner's arms licence was done under a misconception which could not be repeated. It is submitted that renewal of petitioner's arms licence was done under a misconception which could not be repeated. It is submitted that even while making the application for registration of the arms licence, no licence fee had been deposited by the petitioner due to which there was no occasion for the opposite parties to have registered petitioner's arms lience in the State of U.P. and as such petitioner's arms licence continued to be registered in the State of Haryana. It is thus submitted that due to the said fact that petitioner's arms licence was never registered in State of U.P. there could not have been a question for its renewal by the erstwhile District Magistrate in Unnao in the State of U.P. 10. In view of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the petitioner's arms licence clearly expired on 25th March, 2021 and the District Magistrate Unnao was very well within his authority to have required the initial registering authority that is the District Magistrate Sirsa to take action for cancellation of petitioner's arms licence since the same was not renewed either in Haryana or in Uttar Pradesh. As such it is submitted that there is no illegality in the action taken by the opposite parties. 11. It is submitted that deferring to directions passed by this Court, licencing authority has thereafter vide order dated 22nd February, 2022 renewed petitioner's arms licence from 26th March, 2021 till 25th March, 2026 which has been made subject to the order to be passed in the present writ petition and the orders to be passed in cancellation proceedings that are pending in pursuance to the order dated 7th February, 2022 issued by the District Magistrate Sirsa. 12. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, it is admitted case of parties that petitioner's initial arms licence was registered and issued to him in District Sirsa, State of Haryana in 2012, which was valid up to 25th March, 2015. Subsequently it was extended to all of India vide order dated 9th October, 2013 by the State Government in terms of provisions then existing. 13. Subsequently it was extended to all of India vide order dated 9th October, 2013 by the State Government in terms of provisions then existing. 13. It is also admitted between the parties that subsequently the petitioner started residing at Unnao, State of Uttar Pradesh which became his permanent residence and thereafter made an application on 12th January, 2015 for registration of his arms licence at the present place of residence in District Unnao, State of U.P.. Upon such an application being made, the office of District Magistrate vide letter dated 29th January, 2015 sought information from the District Magistrate Sirsa, District Haryana pertaining to details of petitioner's arms licence. The said query was replied to vide letter dated 16th February, 2015. Certain other correspondence pertaining to petitioner's arms licence also took place between the two District Magistrates with all the queries being satisfied. 14. In pursuance thereof, the validity of petitioner arms licence was thereafter extended by the District Magistrate, Unnao, State of U.P. up till 25th March, 2018. The validity was thereafter extended up till 25th March, 2021 vide order dated 6th June, 2018. The dispute with regard to extension of petitioner's arms licence validity after 25th June, 2021 commenced with petitioner's application for further renewal vide letter dated 15th March, 2021 with opposite parties taking the stand in the impugned order that once the petitioner's arms licence stood registered in district Sirsa, Haryana and same was being reflected in the NDAL portal, there was no occasion for the District Magistrate, Unnao to renew the arms licence. Apparently in view of the aforesaid stand, the District Magistrate, Unnao wrote a letter dated 7th January, 2022 to District Magistrate Sirsa indicating the fact that petitioner's arms licence had not been renewed subsequent to March, 2021 due to which it was taken into custody by the police station concerned and recommendation was made for cancellation of petitioner's arms licence. 15. From the material on record it transpires that petitioner's licence issued initially had expired in 2015 whereafter petitioner gave an application dated 12th January, 2015 to the District Magistrate Unnao for renewal. It is relevant to indicate that prior to 2016, the Arms Rules, 1962 were holding the field with effect from 1st October, 1962. Provision of renewal of licences is indicated in Rule 54 of the said Rules and are as follows: “54. It is relevant to indicate that prior to 2016, the Arms Rules, 1962 were holding the field with effect from 1st October, 1962. Provision of renewal of licences is indicated in Rule 54 of the said Rules and are as follows: “54. Renewal of licences: (1) Every licence may, at its expiration and subject to the same condition (if any) as to the grant thereof, be renewed by the authority mentioned in Schedule II as renewing authority: Provided that the licence so renewed may be signed in the appropriate column of the licence by such officer as may be specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government under rule 4. (2) The authority issuing a licence shall ordinarily be responsible for watching all future renewals of the licence. Where a licence is renewed by an authority other than the authority who granted it, the former shall forthwith inform the latter of the fact of renewal and the period for which such renewal is valid. The applicant for the renewal of a licence under this rule shall always be required to state his permanent residence, and, if he notices a change in his permanent residence to the district in which the renewal is sought, the licensing authority of such district shall hence-forward become responsible for watching all future renewals of his licence and shall inform the original issuing authority accordingly. The procedure shall be repeated on each subsequent occasion of renewal of the licence, the necessary intimation being sent by the renewing authority to the original issuing authority or to the authority who last renewed the licence on a permanent change of residence, as the case may be. (3) An application for renewal of a licence for arms or ammunition deposited under sub-rule (1) of rule 47 may be made by the depositor, or where it is not practicable to make the application direct, through the dealer or any other person authorised by him in this behalf while the arms or ammunition continue to be so deposited. (3) An application for renewal of a licence for arms or ammunition deposited under sub-rule (1) of rule 47 may be made by the depositor, or where it is not practicable to make the application direct, through the dealer or any other person authorised by him in this behalf while the arms or ammunition continue to be so deposited. (4) 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 alongwith due regard to the circumstances of the case and all renewal fees for the intervening period are paid; otherwise the application may be treated as one for grant of a fresh licence. (5) The licensing authority and the renewing authority at the Centre or at the State level, while grantiilga licence or renewing a licence, the case may be, shall enter the data of the record in an electronic format duly approved by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. (6) The licensing authority and the renewing authority shall also enter such data as are required in an electronic automated system as developed by the National Informatics Centre for this purpose and the aforesaid electronic automated system shall generate a unique number without which no arms licence shall be considered as valid with effect from the 1st October, 2015.” 16. As would be evident from a perusal of Rule 54(ii) of the Rules that in case of change in permanent residence to the district where such renewal is sought, the licencing authority of such district would hence forward become responsible for watching all future renewals of licence and shall inform the original issuing authority accordingly. It is also provided that the procedure is to be repeated on each subsequent occasion of renewal of licence. 17. In view of aforesaid provision, it is apparent that petitioner's application for renewal dated 12th January, 2015 was rightly made to the District Magistrate, Unnao in terms of Schedule II of Rules 1962. The renewal thereafter by the District Magistrate, Unnao and intimating the same to District Magistrate Sirsa were completely in accordance with Rule 54 of the said Rules. 18. The renewal thereafter by the District Magistrate, Unnao and intimating the same to District Magistrate Sirsa were completely in accordance with Rule 54 of the said Rules. 18. It is also evident that once petitioner's licence was renewed up to 25th March, 2021, he was required to submit a fresh renewal before the District Magistrate, Unnao and not the District Magistrate, Sirsa. It is also relevant that after 2016, Arms Rules 2016 came into effect on 15th July, 2016 in terms of Rule 1(ii) of the said Rules which superseded earlier Arms Rules of 1962. 19. The provisions pertaining to the present dispute relating to renewal after 25.6.2021 are clearly covered by the Rules 5 and 17 of the Arms Rules, 2016 as well as Schedule II to the said Rules. 20. Schedule II to the Arms Rules indicates the authorities concerned who have been empowered to register or renew the arms licences issued for various purposes. Item III of the said schedule clearly indicates that arms licence can be registered throughout the district or area of jurisdiction by the District Magistrate concerned. With regard to extension to whole of India, the State Government is empowered authority. 21. In the present case, it is seen that initial arms licence of petitioner was issued by the district magistrate concerned but subsequently it was extended to all of India by the State Government on 9th October, 2013. There does not appear to be any provision either in the Arms Act or in the Rules for a licence to be registered separately for a particular district, State or PAN India simultaneously. In such circumstances, it is clear that due to passing of subsequent order dated 9th October, 2013 petitioner's licence registration for Arms Act was extended PAN India by the State Government of Haryana. 22. Rule 17 of the Arms Rules, 2016 pertains to registration of licence outside licencing authority and change of address with existing licencing authority. The said rule indicates the procedure which is required to be followed by a person who requires registration of his licence either within or outside licencing authority and with regard to change of address with existing licencing authority. The said rule indicates the procedure which is required to be followed by a person who requires registration of his licence either within or outside licencing authority and with regard to change of address with existing licencing authority. In the present case, once the permanent address of the petitioner had shifted from State of Haryana to State of Uttar Pradesh, he was required to make an application before the District Magistrate Unnao for renewal of his arms licence in that particular district as per Rule 54 of Rules, 1962. The letter dated 12th January, 2015 by the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Unnao clearly indicates its subject as re-registration of petitioner's licence in District Unnao. The gist and prayer made in the aforesaid letter is in conformity with Rule 54 of Arms Rules 1962. 23. From the narration made herein above, it is evident that renewal of petitioner's licence in 2015 and subsequently were in conformity with the Rules of 1962. Since petitioner had already changed his permanent address prior to advent of Rules of 2016, there was no requirement for re-registration in terms of Rule 17 of the Rules, 2016, which were notified subsequently. As such the opposite parties clearly fell in error in holding that petitioner's licence was not registered in District Unnao. It is also evident that petitioner had submitted his application for renewal vide letter dated 15th March, 2021, well before its expiry and the same was required to be considered and decided by the District Magistrate Unnao and not the District Magistrate Sirsa in view of Rules 54 of the Rules 1962 and Rule 5 and 17 of the Rules 2016. The mere fact that petitioner's issuing authority has been indicated in N.D.A.L. Portal as Sirsa, Haryana is an error by opposite parties themselves, the benefit of which can not be extended to them to the detriment of petitioner. It was the duty of opposite parties to have updated their records once petitioner's licence stood renewed by the District Magistrate Unnao. The fact whether District Magistrate, Unnao intimated the District Magistrate Sirsa regarding renewal of petitioner's licence in 2015 and subsequently is also an inter departmental procedure with which petitioner has no concern. 24. It was the duty of opposite parties to have updated their records once petitioner's licence stood renewed by the District Magistrate Unnao. The fact whether District Magistrate, Unnao intimated the District Magistrate Sirsa regarding renewal of petitioner's licence in 2015 and subsequently is also an inter departmental procedure with which petitioner has no concern. 24. It has been informed that in pursuance to impugned order, the authorities at Unnao have seized petitioner's fire arm and have furthermore intimated the District Magistrate Sirsa for cancellation of petitioner's licence and in pursuance thereof, the District Magistrate Sirsa has also initiated some proceeding for cancellation of fire arm since it has not been renewed after 25th March, 2021. The opposite parties by means of affidavit filed in support of exemption from personal appearance have also brought on record order dated 22nd February, 2022 whereby petitioner's arms licence has been renewed by the District Magistrate Unnao from 26th March, 2021 till 25th March, 2026 but the same has been made subject to decision of this petition and orders to be passed by the District Magistrate Sirsa. 25. In view of the discussion made herein above, it is apparent that the renewal of petitioner's arms licence after 2015 by the District Magistrate Unnao was very well in accordance with law and therefore there was no occasion for the opposite parties to have rejected petitioner's application for renewal by means of impugned order dated 22nd March, 2021. 26. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 22nd March, 2021 being clearly unsustainable is quashed by issuance a writ in the nature of Certiorari. It is also held that the recommendation issued by the District Magistrate, Unnao dated 7th January, 2022 to the District Magistrate Sirsa, Haryana was clearly not in accordance with law as indicated herein above. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to return petitioner's revolver S-2252NP bore bearing licence No. 8820/DM/SSA forthwith. It is also directed that the petitioner's arms licence would stand renewed up to 25th March, 2026 as per order dated 22nd February, 2022 issued by the Incharge Arms, Unnao in accordance with this judgment. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.