LAL ABHAY NATH SAHDEO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Arms Magistrate, Ranchi-the respondent no.2 and communicated to the petitioner vide memo no.115/Arms dtd. 7/2/2020 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) whereby the application of the petitioner for issuance of arms licence has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to grant arms licence to the petitioner.

(3.) The factual background of the case as stated in the present writ petition is that the petitioner is a builder running his business of construction in different districts of State of Jharkhand and for the said purpose he has to travel to remote places and in order to safeguard his family and property, he applied for an arms licence in statutory Form III (Form A) on 28/7/2009 in respect of revolver/pistol before the licensing authority. Thereafter, the police officials of Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station, Ranchi visited the residence of the petitioner for enquiry regarding issuance of license of required arms, however, no action was taken in this regard. The petitioner visited the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police-the respondent no.3 and the respondent no.2 to know about the progress of his application where he came to know that vide memo no.2606/09 dtd. 24/8/2009 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the Officer-in-Charge, Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station, Ranchi had forwarded his recommendation for issuance of arms licence in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also came to know that the Superintendent of Police (City), Ranchi, vide memo no.99 dtd. 13/10/2009, had also forwarded his recommendation to the respondent no.2 for issuance of arms license in respect of required arms. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondent no.2 to provide requisite information regarding further progress of his application of arms licence by filing representations dtd. 17/11/2018 and 14/12/2018. However, the respondent no.2 neither replied the representation of the petitioner nor granted arms licence to the petitioner and as such he preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.642 of 2019 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 27/9/2019 directing the respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner's application for grant of an arms licence, unless already decided, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order by taking a decision in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh application for grant of arms licence in respect of revolver/pistol on 21/10/2019 as also filed application dtd. 23/10/2019 before the respondent no.2 enclosing a copy of order dtd. 27/9/2019 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, however, nothing was done. Again a reminder vide letter dtd. 3/1/2020 was filed before the respondent no.2, however, the same remained un-responded. Hence, the petitioner filed a Contempt Case (Civil) No.107 of 2020 before this Court and thereafter the respondentauthority sent a letter to the petitioner vide memo no.115 dtd. 7/2/2020 mentioning inter alia that his application for grant of arms licence stood rejected in view of the report submitted by the respondent no.3 vide letter no.374/Go.(L) dtd. 21/10/2019. The petitioner has come to know that the respondent no.3 had mentioned in his report that there was no immediate danger to the life and property of the petitioner as such no recommendation could be made for issuance of arms license. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sec. 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act, 1959') illustrates the ground on which the respondent authority is empowered to refuse the grant of arms license. None of the grounds empowers the respondent authority to reject the application for grant of arms licence even if there is no immediate danger of life and property of the applicant. The respondent no.2 has rejected the application of the petitioner without any application of mind and taking into consideration the statutory provision provided for refusal of an arms licence and as such the same is illegal and arbitrary, and deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has to go to several remote places in the State of Jharkhand regularly for business purpose to have supervision of his work. During regular visit to his site offices, he has met many unseen events causing threat to his life and property. It is also submitted that in the year 2000, some anti-social elements of an extremist organization burnt the ancestral house of the petitioner situated at village "Oppa" in the district of Lohardaga. Due to such unseen events and considering the threat to his life and property, the petitioner made an application for issuing an arms license of revolver/pistol, however, the respondent no.2 has rejected his application arbitrarily without considering the said aspects. The respondent no.2 was also duty bound to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after receipt of report of the respondent no.3. The respondentauthorities cannot be permitted to traverse the statutory provisions and to consider the non-est ground of having no immediate danger to life and property of the petitioner.