Licensed Arm Dealer Has Right To Seek Enhancement Of Quota; Authorities Bound To Consider Fairly: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court observed that a duly licensed arms dealer, does possess a legal right to seek enhancement of her quota, and the authorities were bound to consider the same fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the recommendations of the district-level officers.

The Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Sinha observed, “The record further indicates that despite such recommendations, the Home Department rejected the request without furnishing cogent reasons, merely citing general apprehensions such as celebratory firing and alleged sufficiency of stock in the district. Such reasons are ex facie irrelevant in the case of a licensed dealer who is authorized to sell only to genuine license holders under the strict scrutiny of law. A refusal based on extraneous considerations amounts to arbitrariness and offends the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution…Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner, being a duly licensed arms dealer, does possess a legal right to seek enhancement of her quota, and the authorities were bound to consider the same fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the recommendations of the district-level officers. The denial of enhancement in the present case is thus unsustainable in law.”

Senior Advocate Mrigank Mauli represented the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Nadeem Seraj represented the Respondents. 

Case Brief

The Petitioner was the proprietor of M/s Prem Lata & Sons, engaged in the business of arms trade. Given that the Petitioner was a licensee, she was permitted to keep and sell arms and ammunition of all bores under NP bore category.

It was contended that the Home Police Department declined the request of the Petitioner for enhancement of quantity, without assigning any cogent reasons, and on the erroneous assumption that there already existed sufficient stock of arms and ammunitions in the district.

It was also contended that the Home Police Department

Court’s Observation rejected the claim of the Petitioner for enhancement of the quota, on the wholly irrelevant ground of alleged “celebratory firing,” without granting any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

Court’s Observation

Following issues were there for consideration before the Court:

1. Whether the petitioner has a legal right to seek enhancement of the quota of arms and ammunition under her dealer’s license?

2. Whether the recommendations of the District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner in favour of the petitioner are binding on the State Government?

3. Whether the petitioner has been treated unequally in comparison to other arms dealers of different districts?

4. Whether the reasons cited by the respondents, such as public safety and misuse of firearms, are valid grounds to deny enhancement of quota?

The High Court noted that a dealer holding a valid license carries with it not merely the right to continue in trade but also a legitimate expectation that her business will be allowed to expand in accordance with market demand, subject to reasonable regulatory control.

“The record further indicates that despite such recommendations, the Home Department rejected the request without furnishing cogent reasons, merely citing general apprehensions such as celebratory firing and alleged sufficiency of stock in the district… A refusal based on extraneous considerations amounts to arbitrariness and offends the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution”, the High Court said.

Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner, being a duly licensed arms dealer, does possess a legal right to seek enhancement of her quota, and the authorities were bound to consider the same fairly.

Further, with regard to the second issue, the Court was of the opinion that while the recommendations of the District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner may not be technically binding in the sense of curtailing the discretion of the State Government, they are nevertheless binding in effect to the extent that the Government cannot disregard them without recording compelling and germane reasons.

Subsequently, the Court held, “ The Home Department, while rejecting the request, did not record any valid reason as to why dealers in smaller districts could be allowed enhanced quotas whereas the petitioner in Patna, where demand is admittedly higher, should be restricted to a lower limit. Such selective treatment, in the absence of any rational justification, offends the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.”

The Court noted that the doctrine of reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution permits the State to impose limitations on such trade in the interest of public peace and security. However, such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or on the basis of vague and general apprehensions. In the present case, the respondents have sought to justify the denial of enhancement to the petitioner on grounds of “celebratory firing,” misuse of arms in crimes, and indiscriminate hunting.

Consequently, the Home Police Department was directed to forthwith enhance the quota of arms and ammunitions in favour of the petitioner in terms of the recommendations made by the District Magistrate.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: M/S Premlata V. The State of Bihar

Appearance:

Petitioner: Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate Ms. Manisha Pandey, Advocates Deepak Kumar, Shweta Pandey, Sanket

Respondents: Md.Nadeem Seraj, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment