SHOR SHOT AMMUNITION MANUFACTURES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims itself to be a registered pertnership carrying on business in the Union Territoly of Delhi In 1965 applied for the issue of a licence for manufacture of cartridges used as amunition in shot guns A licence bear' Ing No. 2/IX/1965 was issued to the petitioner for the manufacture of 5000 gun cartridges at a time. This licence was in Form IX given in the . Arms Act, 1959 lt was renewed from time to time up to December 31,1971. ltis alleged by the petitioner that acting upon this licence granted to it investment was made for purchasing necessary machinery and installing a factory in Bhogal, New Delhi. The production of cartridges was undertaken by the petitioner right up to February, 1972. During all this period the concerned authorities regularly inspected (he (Arrexure) and September 2, 1972 (Annexure and also making a declaration that the licence issued to the petitioner originally in 1965 was a valid licence to enable them to continue the manufacture by them of the ammunition mentioned in the said licence

(2.) the petition has been opposed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3,ramely, the Delhi Administra and the District Magistrate, Delhi the issue of the licence in 1965 is not disputed but it is contenced that under the Aims Act, 1959 read with the Rules made there under the District Magistrate was not the competent authority to issue the licence for the manufacture of ammunition which the petitioner wants to manufacture and the moment this fact was discovered the.petitioner was informed that the licence issued to it earler by the Disrict Magistare, Delhi was not valid in the eye of law. It has also been menuored in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 that the Additional District Magistrate ignored a poliey of the Cenlrat Government contained in Actter N0.9/19/55P. IV dated March 8, 1957 wherein it was laid down that the Government of India has decided that ihc manufacture of arms and ammunition is to be the exclusive monopoly of the Central Government but pending a final decision in the matter the Central Government had no objection to the continuance of manufaelure of arms and ammunftion by private persons and firms who were duly licenced and were already doing lbe work provided that revolvers, pistols and rifle weapons and ammunition were not to be manufactured by private persons at all. It is also stated in the affidavit that the Delhi Admintstration after examining the whole case came to the conclusion, that the petitioner should be prohibited from further manufature not only because the manufacture in the private sector of the type of ammunition that the petitioner was manufacturing was prohibited but also because the liceoce issued by the District Magistrate was in valid in the eye of law.

(3.) On tacts there is not much dispute between the patties. The petitioner was originally granted a licence by the District Magistrate in 1965 which was renewed from time to time up to December 31, 1971. The petitioner did manufacture shot gun cartridges and there is DO complaint that the petitioner ever violated any terms .of the licence or the statute or any statutory rules The short point for coasideration is whether the stand taken by the second and third respoodents Is tenable in law. .