The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held that it is the Arms Licensing Authority that is obliged to obtain a report from concerned Police Station and not the Applicant after submission of Application for renewal of license.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking direction upon the Respondents to renew his arms license.

The single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, ".....In this regard it is to be borne in mind that it is the duty of the licensing authority to get the report from the concerned Police and it is not for the applicant to obtain such report. Thus, in the instant case the respondent-licensing authority was obliged to obtain a report from the concerned Police once it received the application of the petitioner."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Jagpaul Singh while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Nazia Fazal.

Facts of the Case

It was contended in the Writ Petition that the Petitioner was holding a valid arms license issued in 1996 and the said license was renewed from time to time. It was submitted that the license expired in 2019, but it was not renewed thereafter by the Respondents. It was submitted that the Petitioner applied for renewal of his arms license after completing requisite formalities and submitted character certificate issued by the Respondent No. 3. It was further submitted that the Respondents processed the case of the Petitioner for renewal of the license.

It was contended that the Respondents are under an obligation to renew the license of the Petitioner, unless some adverse character verification report from the concerned department comes to fore and that they are bound to take decision on the application of the petitioner, which they have failed to do. The Respondent, in reply to the Writ Petition submitted that the Petitioner never submitted character certificate issued by the competent authority, which is mandatory pre-requisite for renewal of the license. It was submitted that the Petitioner has submitted a character certificate issued by the Sarpanch, which holds no legal validity or relevance. It was further submitted that the petitioner has been named in as many as 10 FIRs including the one registered under Arms Act.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that the licensing authority has to adopt the same procedure and formalities as are to be adopted while granting a fresh arms license and the provisions contained in Section 13 and 14 of the Act have be followed.

It rejected the stand of the licensing authority that the Petitioner has produced character certificate of Sarpanch and not the one issued by the concerned Police Station and stressed that the same was the duty of the licensing authority.

"The respondent-licensing authority was also obliged to make such enquiry as it considers necessary before taking a decision on the application for grant or renewal of arms license in favour of the petitioner. Further as per Sub-Section (3) of Section 15 of the Act, the licensing authority has to record reasons in writing for refusing to renew the arms license. The respondents have, without undertaking the aforesaid exercise, kept the application of the petitioner pending and have not taken a decision thereon. This cannot be countenanced in law," the Court observed.

The Writ Petition was accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take a decision on the application of the Petitioner for renewal of his arms license after following the prescribed procedure.

Cause Title: Kuldeep Sharma vs. UT of J&K and others

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Jagpaul Singh

Respondent- Advocate Nazia Fazal, Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli

Click here to read/ download Order




Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High CourtJustice Sanjay Dhar

Sheetal Joon