HC Expounds: A licensee cannot claim an Arms license as a matter of Right

 

The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the Order dated 20th July 2011 passed by the Minister for State dismissing the Appeal and confirming the Order dated 1st January 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, canceling the petitioner’s arms license. The Court observed that a statute or a provision therein has to be interpreted in a manner, which will give ultimate effect to the intention of the legislature and not otherwise, to frustrate it.

Brief Facts:

Petitioner was issued an arms license by the Deputy Commissioner of Police i.e., the Competent Authority from the Mumbai Police Commissionerate, and in pursuance thereto Petitioner purchased one .32 Bore Pistol and one .12 Bore DBBL Gun.

During the period from the year 1997 to 2009, eight criminal cases came to be registered against the Petitioner. The Competent Authority, therefore, issued a notice dated 6th October 2009 under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Petitioner filed his reply dated 26th October 2009 to the said notice. The Competent Authority, after hearing the Petitioner and considering his reply, by its Order dated 1st January 2010, canceled the arms license granted to Petitioner with immediate effect and directed him to deposit it in its office.

Feeling aggrieved by the said Order dated 1st January 2010, the petitioner preferred an Appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, by its impugned Order dated 20th February 2011, dismissed the said Appeal. Hence, the present petition. 

 

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that there is no allegation against Petitioner to have misused the firearms in any manner against any person. That, out of eight cases registered against the Petitioner, in three cases the Police have submitted Summary Reports before the concerned Courts. That, the Authorities of Respondent-State have failed to consider the nature of criminal cases instituted against the Petitioner while arriving at its subjective satisfaction for revoking the license granted to the Petitioner.

Further, he contended that the Competent Authority issued a show cause notice dated 6th October 2009 under Section 17 (3)(d) but passed an Order under Section 17 (3)(b) of the Arms Act and therefore impugned Order dated 1st January 2010 is bad in law and not in consonance with the show cause notice issued by the Competent Authority.

 

Contentions of the Respondent:

The Learned Counsel of the Respondent supported the impugned Orders and submitted that the notice dated 6th October 2009 issued under Section 17 of the Arms Act is a detailed notice and the Order dated 1st January 2010 passed by the Competent Authority is an elaborate Order giving reasons for cancellation of arms license to the Petitioner.

Further, she argued that the impugned Order passed by the Appellate Authority is also a speaking Order. There were eight cases filed/pending against the Petitioner at the time of issuance of notice dated 6th October 2009 and the said fact has been taken into consideration by the Competent Authority. She submitted that there are no merits in the Petition and it be dismissed. 

 

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that it is not necessary to use a licensed weapon in every crime registered subsequently against Petitioner; however, its use to threaten informant/prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out. On the aspect of Section 17, the Court remarked that sub-sections (b) and (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Arms Act is in conjuncture and complementary to each other. It is the settled position of law that a statute or a provision therein has to be interpreted in a manner that will give ultimate effect to the intention of the legislature and not otherwise, frustrate it. Merely because the Competent Authority in its notice dated 6th October 2009 issued under Section 17 has stated that it was issued under Section 17(3)(d) and while passing Order thereto has stated that the said Order was under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, it does not vitiate either the notice or the final Order dated 1st January 2010.

Further, the Court remarked that a licensee cannot claim a license as a matter of right; however, it is a legal right of the licensor to grant it, subject to fulfillment of necessary legal conditions and subjective satisfaction arrived at by the licensing Authority after taking into consideration various attending circumstances while issuing it.

 

The decision of the Court:

The Bombay High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there is no perversity or illegality in both the impugned Orders and they do not require interference by the Court.

Case Title: Ravindra Shivram Salvi vs The State of Maharashtra 

 

Coram: Hon’ble Justice A.S. Gadkari and Hon’ble Justice Prakash D. Naik

Case no.: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3244 OF 2012

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Ghag 

 

Advocate for the Respondent: Mrs. S. D. Shinde

Read Judgment ;

 

 

 

 Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

 Social media is you.

 (With input from news agency language)

  If you like this story, share it with a friend!   
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .