In a writ petition filed before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, to quash an order passed by the District Magistrate, Dindigul District, and to seek directions for renewal of the petitioner’s gun license, a Single Judge Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan quashed the impugned order and directed the District Magistrate to renew the arms license of the petitioner.
In 2021, a gun license was issued to the petitioner and was renewed thereafter. However, the second renewal of the license was denied as there was a pending criminal case against the petitioner.
The Court perused Sections 13 to 15 of the Arms Act, 1959, and stated that the Indian Constitution did not confer any right on the people to keep and bear arms, unlike the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The Court said that, as per the present position of law, bearing arms is only a privilege conferred by the Arms Act.
Further, the Court said that the language of the statute clearly states that an application for the grant of a license and an application for the renewal of a license already granted do not stand on the same footing. It was mentioned that an application for renewal stands on a higher footing since Section 15(3) provides that, unless the licensing authority decides otherwise in a case, every license shall be renewable for the same period for which it was granted.
The Court stated that the reason an authority assigns for rejecting a renewal will be subject to greater scrutiny, as the test would be whether the burden cast on the Authority has been discharged. Further, it was said that since the non-renewal of an existing license is usually a more serious matter, it may be right to imply a duty to hear before a decision for non-renewal is passed.
The Court referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. G. Lakshman ILR 1987 KARNATAKA 2223, and stated that what was a privilege at the time of issuance of the license metamorphoses into a right to be granted renewal unless grounds under Section 14 are attracted.
It was mentioned that while the involvement of the licensee in criminal cases can be a ground for refusal, the nature of the accusation also plays a significant role. The Court noted that the applicant was being prosecuted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)[1] for causing a motor vehicle accident. The Court said that this could not endanger public safety by any stretch of imagination. Noting that the petitioner was not accused of having misused the license issued to him, the Court held that the reason for rejection of the renewal was clearly unsustainable.
Further, the Court said that the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience, and discretion, and that the writ court is not divested of its power to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Court held that the second ground regarding the non-exhaustion of the appellate remedy also did not have much force.
Thus, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the District Magistrate to renew the petitioner’s arms license.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. S. Sarvagan Prabhu
For Respondents – Mr. M. Lingadurai, Mr. A. Alber James
[1] Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
