HC Can't Interfere In Factual Findings Regarding Grant Of Arms License: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in factual findings returned by the Licensing Authority regarding the grant of arms license under the Arms Act, 1959.

“There is no right to have an arms licence which is a privilege and it is a question of fact which is to be ascertained by the authorities concerned whether a person is entitled to the said privilege or not and no interference with such factual findings is possible in writ jurisdiction,” held Justice Prakash Padia.

Factual Background

The petitioner applied for a grant of a firearm license for self-defence and safety. The Petitioner submitted a medical fitness and domicile certificate. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhansi and Superintendent of Police, Jhansi submitted reports in favour of the petitioner. However, since the petitioner was granted the license within the prescribed time, he approached the High Court. The High Court directed the authority to decide the application within three months.

Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the District Magistrate, Jhansi rejected the application for a grant of firearm license. The petitioner approached the appellate authority under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 which was rejected by the Commissioner, Jhansi Region, Jhansi. Aggrieved against the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been a Practicing Advocate in District Court Jhansi since 2008 and has no criminal history. It was urged that the petitioner be involved in social work for the public interest and was in urgent need of a firearm license for the safety of his life and property. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow & Ors.

Respondents, on the other hand, had submitted that S.S.P. Jhansi had objected to granting of firearm license to the petitioner. Since the petitioner is a practising advocate with no criminal history, no threat to life was made out. Accordingly, the District Magistrate held that the petitioner does not require any firearm license.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that the order of the District Magistrate, Jhansi was passed after considering the facts placed on record by the petitioner. After due consideration, the licensing authority, i.e., the District Magistrate ordered that the petitioner had not given sufficient reasons for being granted a firearm license.

Relying on the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Kailash Nath and others Vs. State of U.P. and another and Ram Milan Vs. State of U.P. and others, the Court held that there is no right to firearm license and it can only be granted by a licensing authority based on facts. The Court held that the question of whether a person is entitled to a firearm license is factual in nature and the High Court cannot interfere with factual findings returned by the Licensing Authority in writ jurisdiction.

Further, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that “Right to own a firearm is not a Fundamental Right in India.”

The Court further relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Adv. Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and others to hold that

“Arms licence is a creation of the statute and the Licensing Authority is vested with the discretion whether to grant or not grant such a licence, depending upon the fact situation in each case.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Gyanendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 483 [WRIT - C No. - 10887 of 2015]

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 483

Click Here To Read/Download Order