Licensing authority to record reasons while refusing arms licence

REASONS FOR DISMISSING AN APPLICATION FOR LICENCE CAN’T BE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE PRESCRIBED UNDER ARMS ACT, COURT SAID

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has ruled that the licensing authority ought to record reasons for refusal of arms licence to a person.

“Licensing authority may differ with the report so submitted by the in-charge of the nearest police station but the same ought to be based on an independent inquiry……that too, by recording reasons in writing,” the bench of justice Jaishree Thakur said.

It further added that the reasons assigned for dismissing an application for licence cannot be different from the reasons prescribed under the Arms Act.

In the case in hand, one Manpreet Singh from Barnala had applied for arms licence in November 2016 before the deputy commissioner (DC) concerned along with requisite documents.

Barnala deputy superintendent of police as well the local station house officer, in their reports, recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of arms licence.

However, the DC rejected the application on the ground that he has not shown or proved any extra-ordinary ground for grant of arms licence.

This order was challenged by the applicant before appellate authority, however, it was dismissed stating that he has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that his life is in danger or he needs a weapon for self-protection.

Following this, Singh had approached HC challenging the decision. He had argued that despite recommendation of police, the licensing authority rejected the application without recording the reasons as enumerated under the Arms Act. Licence can be rejected on the grounds of the applicant being of unstable ground, prohibition under any other law, unfit for the licence or for the security of the public peace or for public safety.

The court said that the licensing authority is obliged to record reasons in writing where it refuses to grant a licence to any person and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same, however, the supply of the said reasons may be denied in public interest.

To the argument of the state that there is a 2010 policy by the government on the issue in question and as per that, the licensing authority doesn’t need to record reasons, the court said that instructions cannot override the statutory provisions of Act.

The court directed that his application be considered afresh and a speaking order be passed within three months enumerating the reasons.