1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2860 of 2024 1 - Inderjit Singh S/o Ram Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o House No B/125 Amrapali Vananchal City Industrial Area Bhilai Ps Jamul Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary (Department Of Home) Ministry Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Magistrate Durg Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Commissioner Durg Division Durg Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, Advocate For State :- Mrs. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 06.05.2025 1. The Petitioner, through this petition, challenge the legally erroneous judgment passed by Respondent No. 3, the Commissioner, Court Durg Division, Durg, in Case No. 911 B-121 of the year 2022-2023, dated 08.02.2024. In the said judgment, Respondent No. 3 rejected the appeal filed under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appeal was against the non-speaking order of Respondent No. 2, the Learned District Magistrate, Durg, in Case No. 12/2023 and Gyapan No. 7051/Re S1/2023, dated 01.09.2023. The order of Respondent No. 2 was a non-speaking order that failed to take into consideration the relevant documents and the threat to the life of the Petitioner. Without providing any opportunity for hearing, the order was dismissed with the observation that “there is no visible threat to the life of the herein Petitioner.” Despite the recommendations of the Police Department and the SDO’s report, along with no-objection letters in favor of the Petitioner, Respondent No. 3, acting as the appellate authority, rejected the appeal by affirming the claim that the Petitioner does not face any threat to life. This rejection of the application and the subsequent appeal against it is contrary to the principles enshrined in the Constitution and the Limitation Act. 2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 Set aside/quash the order passed by the Respondent No. 3 learned Commissioner Court Durg Division Durg in Case No. 911 B-121 of year 2022-2023 dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure P/1). 3 10.2 Set aside/quash the order passed by Respondent No. 2 i.e Learned District magistrate Durg, District Durg in Case No 12/2023 and Gyapan no 7051/Re Sl /2023 Dated 01.09.2023 (Annexure P/2). 10.3 Order/ Direct the Respondents Particularly Respondent no 2 to grant Petitioners the Arms license as per the norms of Section 13 and 14 Arms Act 1959. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 08.02.2024 passed by Respondent No. 3 – the Learned Commissioner, Durg Division, in Case No. 911 B- 121/2022-2023, whereby the appeal preferred under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 was arbitrarily rejected. The said appeal arose from a non-speaking order dated 01.09.2023 passed by Respondent No. 2 – the Learned District Magistrate, Durg, in Case No. 12/2023 (Gyapan No. 7051/Re Sl/2023), rejecting the Petitioner’s application for an Arms Licence despite favorable recommendations from both the Sub-Divisional Officer and Superintendent of Police. The Petitioner, being the Director of a transport company operating in Naxal-affected areas and handling large volumes of liquid cash, sought the licence due to legitimate safety concerns. However, Respondent No. 2 rejected the application merely on the ground that there was “no visible threat” to the Petitioner’s life, without considering the supporting inquiries 4 or addressing the material facts. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a detailed appeal, citing relevant case laws, which was summarily dismissed by Respondent No. 3 without examining the legal precedents or the argument that the Arms Act, 1959 does not mandate proof of actual threat to life as a condition for grant of licence. The impugned order is thus non-speaking, lacks jurisdiction, is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Multiple High Courts, including the Hon’ble Delhi, Gujarat, Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh, and Bombay High Courts, have held that Arms Licences cannot be denied on vague grounds such as absence of visible threat. Further, this Hon’ble Court in Achche Lal Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh (WP(Cr.) No. 244/2016) has held that an Arms Licence cannot be revoked merely due to the pendency of a criminal case. Hence, the present petition is being preferred challenging the impugned orders as being arbitrary, unlawful, and unsustainable in law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner faces a grave and credible threat to life and property, the rejection of his arms licence’ application by the respondents is arbitrary, biased, without jurisdiction, and non-speaking, thus violating the statutory provisions under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. The impugned order fails to assign any cogent or mandatory reasons for such rejection despite favorable inquiry and recommendation reports submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Superintendent of Police, Durg. It is a settled principle of law that 5 arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 SCC 3] and further emphasized in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [AIR 1978 SC 597] and R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [AIR 1979 SC 1628], wherein it was held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state action and requires fairness, reasonableness, and non-discriminatory treatment. The rejection order passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is devoid of rational basis and reflects subjective satisfaction rather than objective application of mind. Various High Courts including the Hon’ble Delhi, Gujarat, Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh, and Bombay High Courts have consistently held that an arms licence cannot be denied merely on vague or subjective grounds such as the absence of a visible threat or “genuine need.” It is stated that the respondent authorities, in the present case, have shown clear bias and have acted beyond the scope of the statute, disregarding the due process of law, the Petitioner’s statutory eligibility, and the recommendations of competent authorities. He further submits that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a ground to revoke the license in exercise of powers conferred under Section 17 (3) (b) of the Act of 1959, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. By ignoring the Petitioner’s contentions and legal precedents, the authorities have violated the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, along with the principles of natural justice. 6 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the Petitioner’s claim for an arms license is devoid of merit and should be dismissed. The rejection of the Petitioner’s application by the Respondent authorities is in full compliance with the statutory provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and based on a careful and objective examination of the facts and circumstances of the case. The decision made by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is neither arbitrary nor biased, but rather reflects a reasoned application of the law and the relevant factors. She submits that the Petitioner has failed to establish any genuine, credible, or substantial threat to his life or property. The recommendation reports from the Sub- Divisional Officer and the Superintendent of Police, Durg do not indicate a clear, present, or imminent threat that would justify the issuance of an arms licence under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. The Respondents have exercised their discretion in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the rejection of the Petitioner’s application is based on a thorough assessment of the available information, which did not substantiate the Petitioner’s claims of threat. It is stated that the issuance of an arms licence is not an automatic right but is subject to the discretion of the authorities, who are required to evaluate the facts and circumstances in a manner that ensures public safety and adheres to the provisions of the law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions put forth before me and have also gone through the 7 documents appended to the writ petition. 7. From the perusal of the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate, Durg dated 04.09.2023 and the Commissioner, Durg dated 08.02.2024, it is evident that the rejection of the petitioner’s application for an arms licence (for a handgun: pistol/revolver) is based solely on the report of the Superintendent of Police, which states that there is “no visible threat to life.” However, such reasoning falls short of the requirements mandated under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. The licensing authority is obligated to consider not only the threat perception but also the applicant’s profession, background, and the entirety of circumstances relevant to the request. A mechanical or blanket denial merely on the absence of a perceived threat, without discussing the petitioner’s profession or giving any detailed, cogent reasoning, amounts to a non-speaking order, which does not satisfy the test of reasonableness, fairness, and non- arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, the Commissioner’s order fails to independently evaluate the matter or apply a judicial mind to the provisions of the Arms Act. The refusal is neither supported by any material finding of unworthiness nor addresses the recommendations of the subordinate authorities in favor of the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that mere absence of a visible or imminent threat cannot be the sole basis for refusal, and that arms licence applications must be considered 8 objectively, taking into account the professional requirements and eligibility of the applicant. The refusal to grant a licence, in the absence of any specific adverse finding against the petitioner, and without a reasoned speaking order, is arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. Section 17(3)(b) of the Act of 1959 states as under:- “17. Variation, suspension and revocation of licences.- (1) XXX XXX XXX (2) XXX XXX (3) The Licensing authority may by order in writing suspend a licence for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a licence- (a) xxx XXX XXX (b) if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the licence; or” A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show if the licensing authority thinks it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety he can suspend or revoke the licence. The order must indicate clearly that continuance of licence would be against public peace, safety and security. 9. It would be apt to refer relevant paragraphs of Rakesh Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Raebareli, reported in 2013(83) Allahabad Criminal Cases 225 (HC) passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad wherein it has been held by the High Court of Allahabad that merely r of pendency of a criminal case, the arms- 9 licenses of the holder cannot be cancelled. Relevant paras 12, 13, 14 and 15 read as under: "12. Further, this Court in the case of Sahab Singh Vs. Commissioner Agra Region, Agra² in paragraph No. 3 held as under:- The submission of the petitioner is That merely because of pendency of a criminal case, the arms licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court in the case of Hausla Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Ishwar @ Bhuri v. State of U.P. It has further been submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the cases of Balaram Singh v. State of U.P., Kailash Nath v. this Court in the case of Sadri Ram v. District Magistrate, Azamgarh, the arms licence of the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension pending enquiry." 13. In the case of Mulayam Singh v. State of U.P4, in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 held as under:- "Para No. 11 The question as to whether mere involvement in a criminal case or pendency of a criminal case can be a ground for revocation of licence under the Arms Act, has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court reported in Sheo Prasad Mishra vs. District Magistrate). The Division Bench relied upon the earlier decision of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Masi Uddin vs. Commissioner, Allahabad", wherein it has been held:- 10 "A licence may be cancelled, inter-alia, on the ground that it is "necessary for the security of public necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to revoke the licence. The mere existence of enmity between a licencee and another connection with security of the public peace or person public safety. In the case before us also the District Magistrate has not recorded any finding that it was necessary to cancel the licence for the security of public peace or for public safety. All that he has done is to have referred to some applications and reports lodged against the petitioner. The mere fact that some reports had been lodged against the petitioner could not form basis for cancelling the licence. The order passed by the District Magistrate and that passed by the Commissioner cannot, therefore, be upheld on the basis of anything contained in Section 17(3) (b) of the Act." Para No. 12 - Similar view has been taken by this Court in various decisions relying upon the Division Bench judgment passed in Sheo Prasad Mishra (supra). There is no doubt that the District Magi state and the Commissioner i.e. administrative authorities are bound to take appropriate action in the matter of grant of licence and also its cancellation for the purpose of maintaining peace and harmony in the society. The assessment of administrative authorities with regard to grant or cancellation of licence should not be interfered in usual course by the Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction unless there is 11 illegality or arbitrariness." 14. In the case of Raj Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.", this Court in paragraph No. 3 held as under:- "The ground for issue of show-cause notice, suspension and ultimately cancellation of the licence is that one and precisely one criminal case was registered against the petitioner. The District Magistrate has also held that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail. He has gone further to observe may disturb public peace and tranquility. The same findings have been given by the Commissioner, Unmindful of the fact that this Court is repeating the law of the land, but the deaf ears of the administrative officers do not ready to succumb the law of the land. The settled law is that mere involvement in a criminal case without any finding that involvement in such criminal case shall be detrimental to public peace and tranquility shall not create the ground for the cancellation of Armed Licence. In Ram Suchi vs. Commissioner, Devipatan Division, it was held that this law was relied upon in aspu Balram Singh vs. State of UPº. Mere apprehension without substance is simply an opinion which has no legs to stand. Personal whims are not allowed to be reflected while acting as a public servant. " 15. Further, in the case of C.P. Sahu v. State¹º, this Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Act held as under:- "The object of the enquiry that a licensing authority may, while proceeding to consider the question as to whether or not an arms licence should be revoked or suspended, like to make, 12 clearly is to enable the licensing authority to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the facts stated in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 17(3) exist and as already explained, it is not obliged to before considering that a case for revocation/suspension of license has been made out, associate the licensee in such enquiry, in this view of the matter it can safely be taken that where a licensing authority embarks upon such an enquiry it is. till then not convinced about existence of the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 17(3), of the Act. So long as it is not so convinced no case to make an order either revoking or suspending an arms licence as contemplated by the section will be made out." 10. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments (supra), it is evident that the petitioner’s arms license has been denied by the licensing authority solely on the ground that the petitioner is not having any threat of life and he does not require any arm, as such, the arm license cannot be granted to the petitioner. The aforesaid order is incorrect on the face of the record as the concerned Superintendent of Police has recommended grant of license to the petitioner. Further, the business of the petitioner is like that in which the demand does not seems to be unjustified. As such, the order impugned seems to be passed without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and further the appropriate Sections of the Arms Act has not been considered while denying 13 the said allegation. As such, it is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 11. In view of the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the impugned order, being a non-speaking one and merely a stereotyped confirmation of the order passed by the District Magistrate, deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The concerned District Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application for the grant of an arms license (Handgun Pistol/Revolver) within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha