KRISHNA PRASAD P v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SMT. BHARATHI H L, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANJUNATHA G, ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

#2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

#3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

#4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SOUTH END CIRCLE, GUPTA LAYOUT, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU. R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:48880 WP No. 22242 of 2024

#5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THE PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION, K.R.LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, BENGALURU URBAN BENGALURU - 560 078. (BY SRI. K P YOGANNA, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER 17.07.2024 REJECT THE PETITIONERS ONLINE APPLICATION FOR GUN LICENCE WITHOUT ASSIGN REASONS (ANNEXURE-D). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner asserts that he is a distinguished engineer at Vantiva, formerly known as Arris Group India Pvt. Ltd., and holds over sixty patents granted by the United States for inventions in the fields of audio, video, internet, and wireless technologies. He is apprehensive about the threat to his life from rival competitors and seeks protection for his crops and standing trees. In this regard, he submitted an application to respondent No.2 for a license to possess 12-bore shotgun shells. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48880 WP No. 22242 of 2024

#2. However, respondent No.2, after receiving reports from respondents No.3 and 4, rejected the application, prompting the petitioner to approach this Court.

#3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

#4. The petitioner annexed documents substantiating that the United States of America has granted him sixty patents. Additionally, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo enclosing a copy of the record of rights, which shows that agricultural lands in Sy. Nos.101/2, 101/1B1, 278/1C1B, 278/1B, and 278/2 are registered in the petitioner’s name.

#5. The petitioner seeks a license to possess a shotgun, citing a threat to his life from rival competitors and the need to protect his agricultural crops and standing trees. However, respondents No. 3 and 4 submitted a report stating that there is no threat to the petitioner’s life and recommended against granting the license. Respondent No.2, relying on this report, rejected the application, but failed to provide reasons for the rejection.

#6. Even otherwise, the rejection of the application does not fall within the grounds enumerated in Section 14(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, which specifies the grounds for refusal to grant a license. Consequently, the impugned endorsement - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48880 WP No. 22242 of 2024 issued by respondent No. 2 is not a speaking order and violates the principles of natural justice.

#7. Therefore, impugned order legally unsustainable and requires reconsideration in accordance with the law. i) ii) ORDER The petition is allowed. The endorsement/order dated 17.7.2024 rejecting the application for grant of license at Annexure-D is hereby quashed. iii) The respondent No.2 is hereby directed reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner after providing an opportunity of hearing. iv) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM