- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13722 WP No. 7263 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7263 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI PAILI S/O LATE PV VARGEES AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT PASODI HOUSE SHIBAJE, BELTHANGADI DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA - 574 198. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEEN S, ADV.) AND: 1. ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA, BUNDER MANGALURU, KARNATAKA - 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA) THIS W P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CANCELLATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE PETITIONER DATED 12/07/2022 IN ANNEXURE J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13722 WP No. 7263 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1. The present writ petition is filed by the legal heir of the original licensee holding an arms licence, calling in question the endorsement bearing No. ARM(1)C.R:606/2021/E-158027/C3 dated 12.07.2022 issued by the second respondent – Deputy Commissioner. By the said endorsement, the second respondent has rejected the petitioner’s application seeking transfer of the arms licence in his favour as the legal heir of the deceased licensee. The said order is assailed in the present proceedings. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follows: The petitioner’s father, who was an agriculturist, owned and cultivated agricultural lands measuring 1 acre 36 guntas and 8 acres 18 guntas situated at Shibaje Village, Kokada Hobli, Belthangadi Taluk. During his lifetime, he had obtained an arms licence. The petitioner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13722 WP No. 7263 of 2026 states that his father passed away on 19.01.2017. It is further contended that the petitioner’s family has been facing recurring losses in agricultural activities due to destruction of crops by wild animals. 3. The petitioner asserts that, upon the demise of his father, the weapon belonging to the deceased licensee was deposited in a licensed armoury in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application in Form III seeking transfer of the SBBL weapon licence standing in the name of his deceased father to his name, along with No Objection Certificates from the other family members. The petitioner further claims to have undergone the requisite arms training and has also obtained a certificate of physical fitness issued by a Government Medical Practitioner, which are produced at Annexures-G and H. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13722 WP No. 7263 of 2026 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent has rejected the said application by issuing the impugned endorsement at Annexure-J in a cryptic manner by invoking Section 14 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (for short, “the Act of 1959”). 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA appearing for the respondents. 6. The short question that arises for consideration in the present petition is: “i. Whether the second respondent – Deputy Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application by invoking Section 14 of the Act of 1959, when admittedly the petitioner had sought transfer of the licence as a legal heir of the original licensee under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016?” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13722 WP No. 7263 of 2026 FINDINGS ON POINT NO.i. 7. On careful perusal of the records placed before this Court, it is evident that the petitioner has not submitted an application seeking a fresh grant of arms licence before the Licensing Authority. On the contrary, the application submitted by the petitioner is one under Rule 25(1)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016, seeking transfer of the licence consequent upon the death of the original licensee, namely his father, and in his capacity as a legal heir. In that view of the matter, this Court finds it rather surprising that the second respondent has proceeded to invoke Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 while rejecting the petitioner’s application. The petitioner had not invoked Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959, which deals with applications for grant of a licence. Therefore, the question of invoking Section 14 of the Act, which prescribes the grounds for refusal of licence under Section 13, would not arise in the present case. Even otherwise, a reading of the impugned endorsement does not disclose any material - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13722 WP No. 7263 of 2026 indicating that the petitioner suffers from any of the statutory disqualifications contemplated under Section 14(1)(i), (ii) or (iii) of the Act. 8. Section 14(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Act contemplates refusal of licence only in circumstances where the applicant is found to be prohibited by law from acquiring or possessing arms, or is of unsound mind, or where the licensing authority, for reasons to be recorded, finds the applicant unfit for a licence or considers it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety to refuse the licence. The impugned endorsement, however, does not disclose that the licensing authority had any material before it suggesting that the petitioner suffers from any such disqualification. Nor does the endorsement indicate that the authority had formed any opinion, based on objective material, that the petitioner is unfit to hold a licence. The order impugned merely records the rejection of the petitioner’s request without assigning - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13722 WP No. 7263 of 2026 any reasons whatsoever. Such an endorsement clearly reflects non-application of mind on the part of the second respondent, who appears to have rejected the application in a mechanical manner. When an application is submitted by a legal heir of the original licensee seeking transfer of licence under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, the licensing authority is undoubtedly required to examine the eligibility and fitness of the applicant. However, such an application cannot be rejected summarily without adverting to the documents and materials produced by the applicant in support of his claim. 9. The petitioner has placed reliance on the medical certificate and physical fitness certificate issued by a competent Government Medical Practitioner, which are produced before this Court as Annexures–G and H. The petitioner has specifically asserted on oath that these certificates accompanied the application submitted to the licensing authority while seeking transfer of the licence in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13722 WP No. 7263 of 2026 his favour as a legal heir. The records placed before this Court indicate that the petitioner had complied with the procedural requirements by furnishing the said medical and fitness certificates along with the application. However, the second respondent, while issuing the impugned endorsement, has not even adverted to these documents or examined their relevance while considering the petitioner’s request. The absence of any reference to these materials in the impugned endorsement further reinforces the conclusion that the application has been rejected without proper consideration of the relevant records. 10. In light of the above material particulars, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained in law. The endorsement is not supported by any reasons and does not disclose any application of mind to the documents produced by the petitioner. The order is also found to be contrary to the medical and fitness certificates furnished by the petitioner - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13722 WP No. 7263 of 2026 in support of his request for transfer of the arms licence. When an administrative or quasi-judicial authority rejects an application affecting the rights of an individual, such rejection must be supported by cogent reasons and must demonstrate due consideration of the material placed on record. In the present case, the impugned endorsement falls short of these requirements. Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside and the matter requires reconsideration by the second respondent. The second respondent shall therefore reconsider the petitioner’s application for transfer of licence in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by this Court hereinabove. 11. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. 12. Hence the following:- ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13722 WP No. 7263 of 2026 (ii) The impugned endorsement bearing No. ARM(1)C.R:606/2021/E-158027/C3 dated 12.07.2022 issued by the second respondent – Deputy Commissioner, produced at Annexure-J, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The second respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application seeking transfer of the arms licence, in accordance with law. While undertaking such reconsideration, the second respondent shall duly advert to the medical and physical fitness certificates produced by the petitioner, as well as the observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs. (iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17