1 2025:CGHC:16220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1202 of 2024 1 - Abdul Latif Rahmani S/o Abdul Rauf Rahmani Aged About 61 Years R/o Near Kharsiya Naka P.S. And Tehsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The District Magistrate/collector Surguja Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional District Magistrate Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent Of Police Surguja Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate For State :- Mrs. Upasana Mehta, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR Date: 2025.04.15 10:50:48 +0530 2 Order On Board 07.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the petition seeking following reliefs:- “i10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 07.02.2024 (ANNEXURE P/1), in the larger interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate and speaking order in accordance with section 14 of the Arms Act 1959, in the larger interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the interest of Justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s application for grant of permission to have 12 bore Gun have been rejected only on the ground that earlier on the basis of license granted to him the petitioner is already having 0.22 rifle and as such he is not entitled to get permission to keep another Gun. He further submits that vide gazette notification dated 13.12.2019, wherein amended was incorporated in Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Arms Act 1959 provides that earlier the persons were having permission to hold 3 Guns, however now it has been amended and the concerned persons are having permission to keep 2 Guns at the same time which has not been considered by the authorities concerned. 3 3. Learned State counsel submits that the the petitioner should have approached before the concerned authorities while mentioning the said provision and, in turn, the concerned authorities will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 4. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the matter, the amendment incorporated in Sub-section (2) of Section 3 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “(1) for the words "three firearms", the words "two firearm" shall be substituted; (ii) for the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:- "Provided that a person who has in his possession more firearms than two at the commencement of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019, may retain with him any two of such firearms and shall deposit, within one year from such commencement, the remaining firearm with the officer in charge of the nearest police station or, subject to the conditions prescribed for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 21, with a licensed dealer or, where such person is a member of the armed forces of the Union, in a unit armoury referred to in that sub- section after which it shall be delicensed within ninety days from the date of expiry of aforesaid one year: Provided further that while granting arms licence on inheritance or heirloom basis, the limit of two firearms shall not be exceeded." 4 5. In view of the above, considering the aforesaid amendment published in Gazette notification, the impugned order seems to be not in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is directed that the petitioner shall apprise about passing of this order to the Collector, Surguja at Ambikapur within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the Collector, Surguja, in turn, shall consider the application of the petitioner afresh while considering the relevant acts and rules and also considering the amendment provided in Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 and thereby pass appropriate orders, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such application, in accordance with law. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The concerned Collector is at liberty to pass orders on its own merits, in accordance with law. 8. With this observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha