Seial No. of
License","Name
description and
residence of
licensee and of
duly authorised
agent or agents,
(if any)","Place of
business of
shop","Description and
number of arms","Description and
quantity of
ammunition","Name of the
range or other
place where
allowed to test","Date and year on
which the
licence expires
(1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7)
XII (2) 2011,"Prop. Shri
Prateep Kumar
Mangal S/o Ajay
Kumar Mangal
Jiwaji Gunj
Morena Dist.
Morena (M.P.)
Firm Name:
Morena
Bandook
Bhandar","Subat Road
Morena","1. 22 Bore Rifle-
10 (Ten Only)
2. BL Gun- 60
(Sixty)
3. Rifle 100
(Hundred Only)
4. Pistol
Revolver â€" 10
(Ten Only)
5. ML Gun â€
10 (Ten Only)
“At a timeâ€","1. 22 Bore Rifle
cartgs1000 (One
thousand Only)
1. BL Gun
cartgs- 10000
(Ten thousand
only)
2. Rifle Bore Rifle
Cartgs. 10000
(Ten thousand
Only)
3. Pistol
Revolver Cartgs.
2000 (Two
thousand Only)
4. ML Gun 1000
(One thousand
Only)",,31.12.2012
Name description and
residence of licensee
and of duly authorised
agent or agents, (if any)","Description of arms
ammunition","Description of
ammunition","Place (with descriptio
n) where articles or to
be kept","Period for which the
licence is valid",,
(1),(2),,(3),(4),,
XIV (2) 2011 Prop. Shri
Prateep Kumar Mangal
S/o Ajay Kumar
Mangal Jiwaji Gunj
Morena Dist. Morena
(M.P.) Firm Name:
Morena Bandook
Bhandar","1. BL Gun- 20 (Twenty)
2. Rifle- 20 (Twenty)
3. Pistol/ Revolver â€
10 (Ten )
5. ML Gun â€" 10 (Ten)
“At a timeâ€","1. BL Gun cartgs- 1000
(One thousand only)
2. Rifle Cartgs. 1000
(One thousand Only)
3. Pistol Revolver
Cartgs. 1000 (One
thousand Only)
4. ML Gun P. Caps 1000
(One thousand Only)
“At a time",Subat Road Morena,31.12.2012,,
MORENA (M.P.)â€,,,,,,
[5] Facts on record reveals that the family feud ignited the controversy. But the inter se dispute amongst the family members has given rise to an,,,,,,
important issue as to whether there can be succession to arms licence (in the present case arms dealer licence) through inheritance.,,,,,,
[6] There is a common stand by the State Government and respondent No.4 that due procedure were adhered to in granting fresh arm dealers licence.,,,,,,
[7] Respondents No.1 to 3, the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries, in paragraph 6, 7 & 8 of its return states:-",,,,,,
“6. …. It is submitted before the Arm Dealer business cannot run without requisite license and it being the business so after the death of original,,,,,,
licensee, it is the practice in the State Government to grant fresh license in the name of a successor, subject to its eligibility.",,,,,,
7. That, it is submitted before this Hon'ble Court that, in the case in hand the respondent No.4 during the life time of original grantee applied for Arms",,,,,,
Dealer License and the original grantee has also consented for granting the same therefore, after following due procedure granted the fresh license,",,,,,,
though, it is mentioned as transfer of license. But its effect is fresh license to continue the business of original licensee.",,,,,,
8. …. the plea of appellant for not providing the opportunity of hearing is also baseless as such during the life time, the original licensee Mr. Bhagwan",,,,,,
Das Saraf, has submitted is (Sic: his) consent in favour of respondent No.4 hence, any opportunity is not required when there is a consent to the",,,,,,
successor appointed by him.â€,,,,,,
[8] Similar stand is taken by respondent No.4 in paragraph 4(II) & 8 of the return:-,,,,,,
“4 (II). … It is necessary to submit here that it is practice in State of M.P. and other states also that after getting license in his name the successor,,,,,,
can continue his ancestral business. ...â€,,,,,,
8. That, it is necessary to point out that in para no. 8 and ground B of memo of appeal and other paras the appellant pleaded he being one of the legal",,,,,,
heirs of Late Shri Bhagwandas Saraf, must have been provided opportunity of hearing and on the other hand he is challenging the jurisdiction of the",,,,,,
licensing authority which smells that the appeal has been filed to settle the family dispute.â€,,,,,,
[9] The foremost question is therefore whether the Arms Act 1959 acknowledges the practice adopted by the State of Madhya Pradesh to grant fresh,,,,,,
license to the successor. Whether such practice can be said to have the sanction of law.,,,,,,
[10] The Act of 1959 came into vogue w.e.f. 01/10/1962. It was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to arms and ammunition. Chapter,,,,,,
II deals with Acquisition, Possession, Manufacture, Sale, Import, Export and Transport of Arms and Ammunition. Sub-section (1) of Section 5",,,,,,
envisages that no person shall (a) use, manufacture, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove, or (b) expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in",,,,,,
his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any firearms or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or",,,,,,
any ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. That sub-,,,,,,
section (2) of Section 5 lays down the consequences for breach of the stipulations in sub-section (1).,,,,,,
[11] Chapter III deals with the provisions relating to licences. Section 13 lays down the procedure. It stipulates that an application for the grant of a,,,,,,
licence under Chapter II shall be made to the licensing authority and shall be in such form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fee, if",,,,,,
any, as may be prescribed. On receipt of an application, the licensing authority shall call for the report of the officer in charge of the nearest police",,,,,,
station on that application, and such officer shall send his report within the prescribed time. The licensing authority, after such inquiry, if any, as it may",,,,,,
consider necessary, and after considering the report received under sub-section (2), shall, subject to the other provisions of Chapter III, by order in",,,,,,
writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same: Provided that where the officer in charge of the nearest police station does not send his,,,,,,
report on the application within the prescribed time, the licensing authority may, if it deems fit, make such order, after the expiry of the prescribed time,",,,,,,
without further waiting for that report.,,,,,,
[12] Section 13 of the Act of 1959 stipulates:-,,,,,,
“13. Grant of licences.- (1) An application for the grant of a licence under Chapter II shall be made to the licensing authority and shall be in such,,,,,,
form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fee, if any, as may be prescribed.",,,,,,
(2) On receipt of an application, the licensing authority shall call for the report of the officer in charge of the nearest police station on that application,",,,,,,
and such officer shall send his report within the prescribed time.,,,,,,
(2A) The licensing authority, after such inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, and after considering the report received under sub-section (2),",,,,,,
shall, subject to the other provisions of Chapter III, by order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same:",,,,,,
Provided that where the officer in charge of the nearest police station does not send his report on the application within the prescribed time, the",,,,,,
licensing authority may, if it deems fit, make such order, after the expiry of the prescribed time, without further waiting for that report.",,,,,,
(3) The licensing authority shall grantâ€",,,,,,
(a) a licence under section 3 where the licence is required-,,,,,,
(i) by a citizen of India in repsect (Sic: respect) of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to be used for protection,,,,,,
or sport or in respect of a muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide crop protection:,,,,,,
Provided that where having regard to the circumstances of any case, the licensing authority is satisfied that a muzzle loading gun will not be sufficient",,,,,,
for crop protection, the licensing authority may grant a licence in respect of any other smooth bore gun as aforesaid for such protection; or",,,,,,
(ii) in respect of a point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle to be used for target practice by a member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognised,,,,,,
by the Central Government;,,,,,,
(b) a licence under section 3 in any other case or a licence under section 4, section 5, section 6, section 10 or section 12, if the licensing authority is",,,,,,
satisfied that the person by whom the licence is required has a good reason for obtaining the same.â€,,,,,,
[13] Further, the Central Government in exercise of its powers conferred by Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 21, 41 and 44 of 1959 Act has",,,,,,
framed Rules known as The Arms Rules, 1962. Rule 51 whereof lays down the procedure for application for licence. Whereas Rule 52 stipulates the",,,,,,
form of licence. Rule 53 envisages variation of conditions of licences. Rule 54 lays down the procedure for renewal of licence.,,,,,,
[14] Careful reading of these provisions thus nowhere endorses the stand of the State of Madhya Pradesh of renewal in favour of a heir of the licence,,,,,,
by succession.,,,,,,
[15] The contention that due procedure has been followed in granting licence to the grandson is also not borne out from the record. There is no iota of,,,,,,
material on record to establish that the procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the Act of 1959 and Rules 51, 52 of the Rules 1962 has been",,,,,,
adhered to while granting licence in favour of respondent No.4.,,,,,,
[16] It is urged on behalf of the respondents that the grandson i.e. respondent No.4 has succeeded to the business of grandfather by virtue of a will in,,,,,,
his favour and therefore rightly, the Arm Dealer Licence is transferred in his favour. In our considered opinion to succeed in a business as heir",,,,,,
apparent is different to hold Arm Dealer License by succession. Evidently, the licence in favour of Shri Bhagwan Das Saraf was not in the capacity",,,,,,
as a partner of Morena Bandook Bhandar, but as an individual and on renewal was valid upto 31/12/2012. However, Shri Bhagwandas Saraf died on",,,,,,
19/11/2010. The Arms Dealer Licence being not heritable, nor can it be transferred. Thus stood revoked with the death of holder.",,,,,,
[17] It was thus beyond the powers of the functionaries of the State of Madhya Pradesh, who are bound by the stipulations in the Act of 1959 and the",,,,,,
Rules of 1962 made thereunder, to have transferred the same in favour of the legal heir.",,,,,,
[18] State as well as respondent No.4 have placed reliance on the decision by learned Single Judge in Dharam Pal Vs. Union of India and others [AIR,,,,,,
1996 J&K 39]; wherein while acknowledging the legal position that there is no statutory stipulations in the Act of 1959 and the Rules of 1962 made,,,,,,
thereunder in the event of death of licencee went on to decide the issue by observing that:-,,,,,,
“43. ….... The silence of Act and the rules made thereunder about a matter should not make the very manufacturing units idle. After all the,,,,,,
establishment of a manufacturing unit is a stupendous task and involves the national wealth, besides the employment of thousands and thousands of",,,,,,
people in it. Moreover, it visits the successors- in-interest of the deceased- licence-holders with all civil consequences, and affects their fundamental",,,,,,
rights as enshrined in the Constitution. Their statutory and legal rights cannot be jeopardised by any authority. They have a right to conduct their,,,,,,
business which is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. The authorities of the State cannot be permitted to infringe any such right. Besides,",,,,,,
that, even the State exchequer is effected by the closure of such units as the recovery of income-tax arid sales tax is effected. It is not in the public",,,,,,
interest also to close such units which give revenue to the State and employment to people. The only object of licencing such units is to obviate its,,,,,,
misuse. For that the Arms Act and the rules made thereunder provide sufficient safeguards if implemented by the functionaries of the State with,,,,,,
dedication and sense of duty.â€,,,,,,
[19] Learned Single Judge placed reliance on the instructions issued by the Government of India (Ministry of Home Affairs) No. 21/5/71-GPA 11,",,,,,,
dated 27-3-1971 on the subject: “Arms Act and Rule-Manufacture of arms and ammunition in the private sector- policy regarding admission of,,,,,,
partners in the licensed unit.†Evidently the instructions, which is reproduced in paragraph 40 of the judgment reported, is issued by the Deputy",,,,,,
Secretary to the Government of India, which is not in consonance with Article 73 of the Constitution. And thus have no force of law. Secondly, the",,,,,,
instructions are in nature of guideline is in respect of inducting a partner in a business as additional partner in the event of death of partner subject to,,,,,,
right of inheritance. In view whereof, the decision in Dharam Pal (supra) cannot be read as creating any right in legal heir for Arms Licence/ Arms",,,,,,
Dealer License through inheritance. In view whereof, the decision in Dharampal (supra) is of no assistance to the State of Madhya Pradesh and",,,,,,
respondent No.4.,,,,,,
[20] When the action of the respondent â€" State of Madhya Pradesh in passing an order dated 10/01/2011 and issuing Arms Dealer Licence in,,,,,,
furtherance thereto in favour of respondent No.4 is tested on the anvil of above analysis, the same cannot be given the stamp of approval.",,,,,,
Consequently, they are set aside. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 30/11/2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 26652/2018 is also set",,,,,,
aside. The interim order dated 03/05/2019 is made absolute. The District Magistrate, Morena or the Competent Authority, if any, is directed to take",,,,,,
steps in accordance with law.,,,,,,
[21] The appeal is disposed of finally in above terms. No costs.,,,,,,
