In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Karnataka High Court to seek quashing of an endorsement issued by the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru (Respondent 3), for being arbitrary and contrary to law, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj quashed the impugned endorsement while directing the Commissioner of Police to issue an arms license to the petitioner within 4 weeks.

By way of the present petition, the petitioner also prayed for the Commissioner of Police to be directed to grant him an Arms License as per Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016. The petitioner’s father owned a valid arms license for a 32-calibre revolver and wished to pass it on to the petitioner, who was a commander/pilot. The petitioner applied for a grant of an arms license under Rule 25 of the Rules.

The said application was rejected on the grounds that the petitioner had no threat to life. Thereafter, an appeal was allowed, and the order was set aside, despite which the Commissioner of Police issued the impugned endorsement stating that the petitioner could not be granted an arms license as he had failed to establish a life threat. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed the present petition.

While considering whether there is a requirement for the transferee of the arm to establish a threat to life under Rule 25(1)(b) of the Rules, the Court perused Rule 25 and stated that Clause (a) of the Rule provided that the licensing authority may grant a license to a legal heir after the death of the licensee.

Further, the Court noted that clause (b) of Rule 25(1) provided that in any other case, when the licensee either attains 70 years of age or upon holding the firearm for 25 years, a license may be granted by the licensing authority to any legal heir nominated by him. The Court found the petitioner’s father to be a 75-year-old who had held a license since 1971, i.e., for almost 54 years. Thus, the Court held that the dual conditions under clause (b) were satisfied and noted that the police report contained no adverse remarks against the petitioner.

The Court held that the respondents could not have rejected the application for lack of threat to the petitioner’s life and that the impugned endorsement was contrary to Rule 25. Hence, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned endorsement while directing the Commissioner of Police to issue a license to the petitioner within 4 weeks.

Appearances:

For Petitioner – Leelesh Krishna

For Respondents – K.P. Uashodha