Licensing Authority Empowered To Vary The Conditions Subject To Which Arms License Was Granted: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court held that the licensing authority is empowered to vary the conditions subject to which a license was granted under section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Act).

The Court dismissed the Petition of an Individual challenging the order of the licensing authority.

The Court noted that the authority can take such actions if it is convinced that the license holder is prohibited from possessing arms, is of unsound mind, is unfit for a license, or if it is necessary for public peace or safety.

The Court also noted that revocation may also occur if the license was obtained through the suppression of material information, wrong information, contravention of license conditions, or failure to comply with a notice.

“From a perusal of Section 17 of the Act, 1959 it emerges that the licensing authority has been given the power to vary the conditions subject to which a license has been granted. The licensing authority, on an application of a holder of a license can also vary the condition of the license” the Bench of Justice Abdul Moin observed.

Advocate Pramod Kumar Shukla appeared for the Petitioner.

The Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of orders, passed by authorities revoking the Petitioner's arms license. The Petitioner contended that despite not being named in two FIRs lodged in 2018, the police recommended the suspension and cancellation of the arms license. The Petitioner's appeal against the revocation was rejected. The Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the orders, a mandamus to revoke the suspension, and the release of the surrendered arms.

The Court noted that the Petitioner, who held an arms license since 2002, had it renewed until December 17, 2025. The license was subsequently cancelled after the competent authority, in an order dated March 26, 2021 considered not only the pendency of criminal cases but also the Petitioner's conduct. The cancellation was based on the conclusion that the Petitioner's possession of the arms license would be detrimental to public security and safety. The Court notes that the cancellation was made under the provisions of the Act, which empowers authorities to revoke licenses.

Furthermore, the Bench noted that the licensing authority possesses the authority to modify the conditions under which a license is granted. Additionally, the licensing authority can alter the conditions upon the request of the license holder. This authority can take such actions if it is convinced that the license holder is prohibited from possessing arms, is of unsound mind, is unfit for a license, or if it is necessary for public peace or safety.

“The licensing authority has also been given the power under Sub section (3) of Section 17 of the Act, 1959 to suspend a license for such period as it thinks fit or revoke a license, where the licensing authority is satisfied that the holder of the license is prohibited by the Act, 1959 or by any other law from acquiring or having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or is of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfit for a license and if the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to suspend or revoke the license or license has been obtained by the suppression of material information or on the basis of wrong information provided by the holder of the license or if any of the conditions of the license has been contravened or if the holder of the license has failed to comply with a notice requiring him to deliver up the license”, the Bench noted.

The Bench observed that the licensing authority, in its order dated March 26, 2021 recorded that the Petitioner engaged in activities threatening public peace and safety, including spreading rumours, instigating a crowd during a religious festival, and defying Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Despite being informed about the legal restrictions and the presence of the District Magistrate, the Petitioner continued his actions, leading to the cancellation of his arms license under Section 17(3)(b) of the Act. The Court, considering the Petitioner's conduct and the lack of malafide or evidence, found the authority's decision justified and objective.

The Court clarified that the cancellation of the Petitioner's arms license was not solely based on the pendency of criminal cases but on an objective consideration of the Petitioner's conduct. Referring to the judgment in the case of Ram Pratap Singh, the Court emphasized that the cancellation of an arms license cannot be solely due to pending criminal cases. However, in this case, the competent authority objectively examined the Petitioner's reply and concluded that the Petitioner's possession of an arms license posed a threat to public peace and security.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Raj Kumar Gautam v State Of UP (2024:AHC-LKO:8776)

Click here to read/download Judgment