BHARATLAL R HALWAI Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was granted licence for Non-Prohibited Bore Rifle S. B. B. L. for a period of one year i. e. upto 30th September, 1991. The petitioner applied for renewal of the said licence on 25-10-91. After calling Police Report, respondent No. 2 rejected the application for renewal of licence vide letter dated 8th February, 1993. By this Order, the petitioner was required to deposit the weapon either with the officer-in-charge of Vasco Police Station or with the dealer holding licence in Form XIV and dispose of the weapon as per section 21 of the Arms Act, 1959 within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the said weapon would be forfeited to the Government. The weapon was deposited by the petitioner within the given time limit. The petitioner sought for grounds of rejection and was informed vide letter dated 16-3-93 that the request for renewal of licence was rejected on account of the adverse Police Report. The petitioner challenged the order of respondent No. 2 of rejection of the application for renewal of arms licence before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, after hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner, dismissed the appeal vide Order dated 21-7-1995. The petitioner impugns the said order as well as the Order dated 8-2-1993 of respondent No. 2.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri Bhise, appearing for the petitioner, has urged that no show cause notice was issued before rejecting the application for renewal of the arms licence; that in view of section 13 (2) of the Arms Act, 1959 the arms licence is deemed to have been granted; that the respondent No. 2 did not furnish the brief statement of reasons of refusal even though it was specifically asked by the petitioner and that there was absolutely no ground or justification for refusal of the renewal of arms licence. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in (Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. District Magistrate, Almora and others), A. I. R. 1993 Allahabad, 291. Learned Advocate Shri Bhise has further contended that the appellate authority has not applied its mind and the rejection has been mechanical.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Government Advocate Shri Bharne has urged before us that section 17 (3) of the Arms Act is not applicable and, as such, there was no question of issuing any show cause notice before rejection of the request for renewal of arms licence; that no deeming provision can be carved out from section 13 (2) or section 13 (2-A) of the Arms Act; that the ground on which the renewal of arms licence was refused has been furnished and that in view of the adverse report of the Police, the respondent No. 2 had properly exercised the discretion in refusing the grant of the arms licence. He also pointed out that the appellate authority, after hearing the matter, has confirmed the order and there is no case for interference. Reliance has been placed on a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in (Kapildeo Singh v. State of Bihar and others), A. I. R. 1987 Patna, 122 wherein, after examining the various provisions of the Arms Act including sections 13 and 14, it has been laid down that the discretion to grant or refuse the licence in the context, has perhaps been deliberately kept untrammelled and that if the authority has reason to believe that the applicant is for any reason unfit for licence, the licence can be refused.