Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1101 (RAJ)

Prabhu Ram Godara v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-05-12

NUPUR BHATI

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Nupur Bhati, J.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by petitioner for the following reliefs :- (1) The inaction and unjustified delay on the part of the respondents in renewing of Arms Licence No.217/ADMR/97 and UID No.295000029862232016 of the petitioner may kindly be declared per se unjust, arbitrary and further violative to Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (2) The respondents may kindly be directed to renew the Arms Licence No.217/ADMR/97 and UID No.295000029862232016 of the petitioner on urgent basis. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman of Indian Army. The petitioner is aspiring to work as security personnel with private company and for this purpose he requires a gun license. 3. The petitioner has a 12-Bore licensed gun, having Arms Licence No.217/ADMR/97 and UID No.295000029862232016. This license was issued to the petitioner while serving in the Indian Army at Ramban (J&K) on 26.11.1997. The copy of the arms license is placed on record as Annex.2. The arms license of the petitioner was renewed from Nagpur (Maharashtra) and Barmer (Rajasthan) while the petitioner was serving in Indian Army. The petitioner retired after the year 2005 and thereafter he applied before the respondent-authorities for renewal of his arms license (Annex.2) at his home district i.e. Bikaner. The petitioner submitted his original arms license before the respondent-authority along with requisite fees and application. The gun was returned back to the petitioner with an instruction to keep it in safe and not to use it. 4. The petitioner had applied for the renewal of arms license way back in the year 2005 but it was not renewed even after a period of 15 years despite the fact that the police verification of the petitioner has also been done twice. 5. The respondent authorities were under an obligation to renew license of the petitioner within 30 days of verification report of the police personnel, however, nothing was done. The respondents have sent letters to the District Magistrate, Ramban, Jammu & Kashmir but no head was paid to it. 6. The petitioner, thus, being aggrieved of the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case has preferred this writ petition. 7. The respondents have sent letters to the District Magistrate, Ramban, Jammu & Kashmir but no head was paid to it. 6. The petitioner, thus, being aggrieved of the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case has preferred this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Circular of State Government dated 30.5.2019, which is placed on record as Annex.R/1, certain directions have been issued. He further submits that under Clause (2)(vi) of the said Circular dated 30.5.2019, the license can be renewed only after the concerned Authority who had lastly renewed the license verifies it. The relevant extract of the circular is reproduced hereunder :- (vi) vuqKkiu izkf/kdkjh vU; jkT;ksa ls tkjh 'kL= vuqKki= dk uohuhdj.k djus ls iwoZ vuqKkiu izkf/kdkjh@uohuhdj.k izkf/kdkjh ftlus vfUre ckj uohuhdj.k fd;k gks] ls 'kL= vuqKkiu ds lR;kiu ds i'pkr gh uohuhdj.k djsaxsA bl laca/k esa fo'ks"k lrdZrk cjrsaA** 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities are time and again sending requests for verification to the concerned zuthority at Ramban, Jammu and Kashmir, however, the petitioner's last renewal has been made by the concerned Authority at Barmer, which is evident from a copy of the arms license dated 26.11.1997 (Annex.2). 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards Rule 24(1) of the Arms Rules, 2016, the same is reproduced hereunder :- "Renewal of licences - (1) Every license may, as its expiration and subject to the same conditions (if any) as to the grant thereof, be renewed by the authority mentioned in Schedule II as renewing authority within a period of thirty days of receipt of the police report. Provided that the license so renewed may be signed in the appropriate column of the license by such officer as may be specifically empowered in this behalf by the State Government under Rule 5." 10. Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that they are regularly making a request to the Additional District Magistrate, Ramban, Jammu & Kashmir but no response whatsoever has been received. 11. Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that they are regularly making a request to the Additional District Magistrate, Ramban, Jammu & Kashmir but no response whatsoever has been received. 11. Counsel for the respondent further submits that as per Clause 2(vi) of Circular dated 30.5.2019 (Annex.R/1), the Licensing Authority before renewal of arms license issued from another State, shall make renewal only after being verified from the Authority who had lastly renewed the arms license of applicant and, thus, they are regularly making a correspondence with the concerned Authority at Jammu & Kashmir but there is no response from them. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. This Court finds that the arms license issued to the petitioner on 26.11.1997 clearly reflects that it has lastly been renewed by the concerned Authority at Barmer as it has been mentioned in it that "As per verification letter No.46 dtd. 20.3.01 DM, Doda, renewed up to 31.12.2005". It also bears seal and signature of the District Magistrate, Barmer, Rajasthan. It is important to note that in the arms license issued to the petitioner on 26.11.1997, there is a noting by the renewing authority (District Barmer) that "as per aerification letter of District Magistrate, Doda received". This noting clearly shows that earlier when the arms license of the petitioner was renewed by the concerned authority at District Barmer, the verification for the purpose of renewal of the license was sought from the authority, who had lastly renewed the license of the petitioner. The respondent Authorities without appreciating the fact that the arms license of the petitioner was lastly renewed from Barmer (Rajasthan) on 31.12.2005, are making correspondence with the concerned authority at Ramban, Jammu & Kashmir. Clause 2(vi) of circular dated 30.5.2019 (Annex.R/1) clearly stipulates that before renewing the arms license issued from other States, the licensing authority will renew the arms license only after the verification of the arms license from the licensing authority/renewing authority, which last renewed it. 14. The respondents are, therefore, directed to seek verification for the purpose of renewal of the arms license of the petitioner from the last renewing authority, i.e. authority at Barmer District, while adhering to clause 2(vi) of the Circular dated 30.05.2019 (Annex.R/1) and are further directed to renew the license of the petitioner, if found suitable/eligible for it, within a period of two months. 15. 15. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed. 16. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.