No Finding With Regard To Essential Ingredients Of Rule 32 Of Arms Rules: Allahabad High Court Restores Arms License

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, as well the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, in a case registered under the Indian Arms Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Kunal Ravi Singh held, “The District Magistrate has not given any finding with regard to any of the conditions enumerated under Rule 32. It is specifically required under Rule 32 that either the weapon being carried in a holster or any equipment manufactured, designed to carry the same as required was not done so or if the weapon was discharged in any public place. There is no finding with regard to the essential ingredients of Rule 32, violation of which would allow the authority to pass an order for cancellation and seizure. As a result of this, the entire order is liable to be set aside.”

“As a result of writ petition being allowed, the licence of the petitioner is restored, if it is valid today, and the seized weapon and the cartridges are to be returned forthwith upon the valid licence being produced by the petitioner”, it ordered.

Advocate Kailash Singh Kushwaha represented the Petitioner while Chief Standing Counsel represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner was granted arms licence for N.P.B. Revolver .32 bore which was renewed from time to time by the competent authority and was valid up to September 14, 2020. Notice came to be issued by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur based on the report of the S.H.O., District Ghazipur. In the said notice, it was directed that the licence of the petitioner was suspended with a direction to deposit his weapon with the police station and a further direction was issued for him to appear before the court of the District Magistrate. The petitioner specifically stated in his reply that he had never used the weapon in contravention of any conditions of the licence, and he had always used his weapon for his personal safety.

The weapon of the petitioner was taken in possession by the SHO, Police Station Mohammadabad, Ghazipur, in pursuance of the notice. Ultimately, by means of an order, the gun licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the District Magistrate. Aggrieved by the said order, cancelling his licence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The appeal also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the cancellation of the licence took place on the basis of Rule 32 of the Arms Rule, 2016, and the impugned order stated that the licence holder had committed certain acts, which violated Rule 32. The Bench explained that Rule 32 mentions restrictions on carrying of firearm in a public place and has a negative connotation that no person can carry a firearm in a public place unless the firearm is carried in a holster or a holder of any other equipment which is designed, manufactured or adopted for carrying a firearm. It was further noticed that sub-rule 3 of Rule 32 puts a prohibition on brandishing or discharging of firearms or blank-firing firearms in a public place or a firearm-free zone. It was noticed that the consequences of such a violation are the cancellation of the licence and seizure of the weapon.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that in the order passed by the District Magistrate, the authority had relied upon Rule 32 of Arms Rule, 2016 to cancel the licence. It was also noted that the petitioner had submitted that the cartridges were expended only during testing and cleaning of the weapon. The petitioner had also specifically denied that he had ever used the weapon for public firing in any wedding or any other public place.

The Bench held, “From the reading of Rule 32, it is clear that before a licence can be cancelled under Rule 32, it is necessary that the authority forms an opinion as to whether any licensed fire arm was either not carried in the proper protective gear or was brandished, discharged or whether any blank firing took place in any public place or fire arm free zone. Such considerations and opinions are sine qua non for invocation of Rule 32 under the Rules, 2016.”

Considering that such a finding was missing, the Bench held that on this ground alone, the impugned order was liable to be quashed. “Without clearly specifying as to which of the sub-rules under Rule 32 is being violated by the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be fastened upon the liability of cancellation of his licence and seizure of his weapon. Furthermore, from the perusal of the order passed by the District Magistrate, it is also clear that due appreciation of the reply submitted by the petitioner has also not been accorded by the District Magistrate before passing of the impugned order”, it added.

Thus, holding that the invocation of Rule 32 to cancel the gun license of the petitioner was illegal, the Bench allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned orders.

Cause Title: Yogendra Prasad v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others ( Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:207131)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Kailash Singh Kushwaha, Ramesh Chandra Yadav

Respondent: Chief Standing Counsel

Click here to read/download Order