0

Any interference in rejection of grant of fresh application / refusal / renewal of licence for firearms not warranted except when extraordinary circumstances are pointed out: Rajasthan High Court

The High Court of Rajasthan, through learned judge, Justice Vijay Bishnoi in the case of Bhan Singh v State Of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7422/2022) observed that any interference in rejection of grant of fresh application / refusal / renewal of licence for firearms not warranted except when extraordinary circumstances are pointed out.

BRIEF FACTS: The petitioner had a grievance regarding the arms licence. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid the grievances with regard to matters relating to licences of firearms under the Arms Act, 1959. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was a statutory provision for persons to apply and acquire a firearm licence, and thus, the respondents ought to maintain maximum transparency, while passing the orders, whereas the impugned orders have been passed without making any individual consideration of the relevant criteria. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no absolute right of any person to acquire an arms licence and the respondents have every right to objectively decide each case, while taking into consideration the past record of the person seeking such licence as well as the pendency of proceedings, if any.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT: This Court was of the opinion that any interference in rejection of grant of fresh application / refusal / renewal of licence for firearms was not warranted except when extraordinary circumstances are pointed out. Looking into the submission made by learned counsel for the parties that it would  suffice if their rights are redetermined by the respondents, while keeping into consideration the judgement rendered in Khem Singh, the same was accepted. Thus, in the given circumstances, the present petition was disposed of, while directing that the petitioner to file a fresh representation within a period of 15 days from the date of obtaining the certified copy of this order and the representation to be considered afresh by the respective District Magistrate by passing speaking orders, while keeping in mind the relevant aforementioned judgments, the existing policy of the State, strictly in accordance with law. All pending applications was also disposed of.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K

Click hear to read Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat