MILAP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 8.4.2011 (Annexure P1) and letter dated 2.5.2011 (Annexure P2) on the ground that the weapon of the petitioner does not fall within the definition of "prohibited arms".

(2.) THE petitioner owns a .30 carbine rifle (semiautomatic) and he was granted an Arms Licence vide No. 4267/NL/DMR. The Director General of Police (respondent No.3) vide letter dated 2.5.2011 had directed the petitioner to surrender his licence and deposit such arms and ammunition as specified in the order with the nearest police station. Pursuant to the letter written by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi dated 8.4.2011 (Annexure P1) the number of the licence of the petitioner is shown at Sr. No. 228. The petitioner deposited his weapons with the police station Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar on 4.5.2011 and a receipt was issued by the authorities in this behalf (Annexure P3). Petitioner made an application under the RTI Act on 2.5.2011 for opinion whether .30 carbine Rifle (semi -automatic) was a prohibited weapon (Annexure P4). Vide reply dated 18.5.2011 (Annexure P5) the Ministry of Home Affairs, Arms Section, has informed the petitioner that his weapon was covered under the definition of "prohibited arms". However, there was no notification in this regard issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has argued that as per Section 2(1) (i) of the Arms Act, 1959 the petitioner's weapon .30 carbine Rifle (semi -automatic) is not covered under the definition of "prohibited arms" as under Section 2 (1)(i) of the Act, the definition of "prohibited arms" is as under: -