1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
O R D E R
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3814/2008
Hussain Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
.........
Date of Order : 12th February, 2009
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR
Mr. M.K.Garg for the petitioner.
Mr. B.L.Tiwari, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents.
BY THE COURT
By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders
Annex.16 dated 25.1.2006 and Annex.17 dated 31.10.2007
passed by District Magistrate, Hanumangarh and the Divisional
Commissioner, Bikaner respectively.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner applied for Arms Licence for M.L.Gun. The
petitioner’s father Lal Khan was issued an Arms Licence for gun
vide Annex.2, however, the petitioner’s father died on
05.01.2003, a death certificate to that effect has been placed on
record as Annex.3. After the death of the petitioner’s father, the
2
petitioner applied for M.L. Gun Licence so that the gun which the
petitioner’s father had under a valid licence can be held by the
petitioner on grant of such licence. The petitioner applied for
licence in the prescribed proforma before the competent
authority. A verification was sought from the Superintendent of
Police (CID), in pursuance thereof, the police verification report
Annex.7 was given by the office of the Additional Inspector
General of Police (Intelligence), Jaipur informing that as per the
record available on computer, no objectionable facts came
against the petitioner. However, it was left to the licensing
authority to verify the character and criminal record at its own
and proceed with the matter. There was no crime report
registered against the petitioner, but only once he was arrested
under Section 151 CR.P.C., a preventive arrest for prevention of
breach of peace, though earlier a FIR was registered for the
offence under Section 379 IPC but the complainant later came
and submitted that under some wrong belief he has submitted
the report and police submitted negative final report which came
to be accepted by the Court.
Learned Additional Govt. Counsel appearing for the
respondents supported the orders impugned.
Having carefully gone through the material on
record, in my view, there being nothing adverse to the
petitioner, even the petitioner did not have the adverse criminal
3
antecedents. Merely because he was put under preventive arrest
under Section 151 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that the petitioner
has any criminal antecedents. More so, the authorities below
have not come to the conclusion that grant of arms licence for
M.L. Gun would result in danger to public safety or peace. In
this view of the matter, the authorities below fell in error in
declining to grant licence for M.L. Gun more particularly in the
situation that the petitioner’s father had a licence for M.L. Gun
and has expired and the petitioner inherited the gun but without
licence he cannot be allowed to possess the same. In the
circumstances, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be
allowed.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The orders
impugned Annex.16 dated 25.1.2006 and Annex.17 dated
31.10.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Hanumangarh and the
Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner respectively are set aside and
quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent District
Magistrate, Hanumangarh to consider and decide afresh the
issue of grant of arms licence for M.L. Gun in respect of the
petitioner. No order as to costs.
(H.R.PANWAR), J.
rp