MUHAMMED SHAFI.A. v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676505

“C.R.” V.CHITAMBARESH, J.-------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 37679 of 2010-------------------------------Dated this the 20th day of January, 2012J U D G M E N TThe petitioner applied for licence for a .22 bore riflemade by Remington (USA) in terms of Section 3 of the Arms Act,1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Ext.P1 is theapplication for arms licence in the prescribed format wherein theneed projected by the petitioner is self protection. The DistrictMagistrate who is the licensing authority called for reports fromthe departments of Police, Forest and Revenue. Ext.P2 is thereport of the District Superintendent of Police to the effect thatthere is no objection in granting a licence to the petitioner fromthe point of view of security. Ext.P3 is the report of the DivisionalForest Officer to the effect that there is no objection in granting alicence from the point of view of forest and wild life protection.The District Magistrate however by Ext.P4 order rejected theapplication for licence put in by the petitioner. The said order waschallenged in appeal under Section 18 of the Act to the LandRevenue Commissioner raising several grounds. Ext.P5 is the W.P.(C) No.37679 of 20102order of the appellate authority confirming the order of thelicensing authority disallowing the application for licence. Theconcurrent orders of the authorities have been challenged inthis writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The two reasons held out against the petitioner fornot granting an arms licence are the following:-(i)The Taluk Tahsildar has reported that the neighboursin the locality have no good opinion about thepetitioner. (ii)The petitioner does not own or possess any land. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the DistrictMagistrate supporting the rejection of the application forlicence for reasons stated supra. The report of the TalukTahsildar which strikes a discordant note from the other reportshas been produced as Ext.R1(a) along with the counter affidavit.I heard Advocate Smt.Rashmi.K.V. on behalf of the petitionerand the Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. 3. Section 13 of the Act deals with the grant oflicences and the relevant provisions thereof are as follows:- W.P.(C) No.37679 of 20103 “13. Grant of Licences - (1)...........(2)On receipt of an application, thelicensing authority shall call for the report of theofficer in charge of the nearest police station onthat application, and such officer shall send hisreport within the prescribed time. (2A)The licensing authority, after suchenquiry, if any, as it may, consider necessary,and after considering the report received undersub-section (2), shall subject to other provisionsof this Chapter, by order in writing either grantthe licence or refuse to grant the same.”True it is that the licensing authority as part of his enquiryunder Section 13(2A) of the Act may be within his powers to callfor a report from the Taluk Tahsildar. All that the TalukTahsildar has reported is that the neighbours in the localityhave no good opinion about the petitioner. Such reports of theTaluk Tahsildar cannot gain precedence over the reports of theDistrict Superintendent of Police and Divisional Forest Officer.The report of the District Superintendent of Police obtained W.P.(C) No.37679 of 20104under Section 13(2) of the Act does recommend the grant ofarms licence. No specific instance of the petitioner having beeninvolved in any crime at any point of time earlier has beenreported either by the police or any other departmental officer. 4. Section 14 of the Act deals with the refusal oflicences and the relevant provisions thereof are as follows:-“14. Refusal of Licences - (1)Notwithstanding anything in Section13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant -(a)................(b)(i)............... (ii)Where the licensing authority deems itnecessary for the security of the publicpeace or for public safety to refuse to grantsuch licence. (2)The licensing authority shall notrefuse to grant any licence to any person merelyon the ground that such person does not own orpossess sufficient property.”Thus the mere fact that the petitioner does not own or possessany property (which admittedly stands in the name of his W.P.(C) No.37679 of 20105mother only) is not a reason enough to deny arms licence.There is also no finding by the authorities that it is expedient torefuse arms licence 'for the security of public peace or forpublic safety'. 5. The Act expressly contemplates the grant oflicence for a person to acquire, possess or carry any fire arm orammunition in accordance with the provisions thereof. TheSupreme Court dealing with a case of rejection of applicationfor manufacture of arms under the Act held in Ranjith Singh v.Union of India (1980 (4) SCC 311) as follows:-“An applicant for a licence is entitled to have itconsidered in accordance with the terms of thestatute and to press for its grant on the basis ofthe criteria set forth in it.”A total non application of mind is well evident in the instant caseand the authorities have refused licence for reasons notjustifiable by the provisions of the Act. I should bear in mindthat licence to possess a fire arm should not be granted for themere asking in view of the inherent danger posed by it. This W.P.(C) No.37679 of 20106Court in V.K.Thomas v. Revenue Board (1987 (2) KLT 782)had occasion to observe as follows:-“It needs no reiteration that the issue of licencesfor possessing deadly arms should be done withgreat care and caution and with greatercircumspection and fuller realisation of thechanged times.”I therefore quash Exts.P4 and P5 and direct the first respondentDistrict Magistrate to reconsider Ext.P1 application for armslicence strictly within the parameters of the Act. 6. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. V.CHITAMBARESH,Judge. nj. V.CHITAMBARESH, J. --------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.37679 of 2010JUDGMENTDated:- 20th January, 2012--------------------------------------