Mere registration of a first information report (FIR) cannot justify cancelling or refusing to renew an arms licence, the Orissa high court has ruled. The court said authorities must demonstrate with reasons in writing that the licence-holder poses a genuine threat to public peace and safety before invoking their powers under the Arms Act.
Justice AK Mohapatra pronounced the judgment on Friday, setting aside the additional district magistrate’s order upholding cancellation and subsequently refusal to renew the arms licence of businessman Sambit Padhy based on his alleged involvement in a criminal case.
In 2022, an FIR was lodged against Padhy over alleged illegal possession of chromite and hard coke.
Justice AK Mohapatra ruled that mere registration of an FIR is not sufficient. “The competent authority must be satisfied that the licensee was involved in or participated in the alleged offence, or that the licensed weapon was used in the commission of such offence.”
Padhy was granted licence from August 2019 to August 2022 for a 0.32-bore pistol for personal security. He applied for licence renewal in August 2022.
The high court noted there was no allegation that Padhy ever used his licensed firearm in the commission of any offence, nor was there any suggestion that he had assaulted or threatened any person. It said the grounds for the licence denial did not fall within those cited in Section 17 of the Arms Act.
“Once a licence is granted lawfully, Section 15(3) of the Arms Act confers a limited right of renewal; the burden lies on authorities to justify non-renewal in writing. The authorities could not have rejected the application for renewal of arms license because of the pendency of a criminal case, without assessing the gravity of the crime and without concluding that the petitioner is a hardened criminal and that the grant of an arms license in his favour would disturb the peace in the locality,” the high court said. It added that Padhy had not misused his firearm.
The court set aside the cancellation and appellate order. It referred the matter back to Khordha’s additional district magistrate for fresh consideration in conformity with Sections 13, 14, and 17 of the Arms Act. It directed Padhy to appear before the magistrate within two weeks for a “speaking and reasoned order” within four weeks.
