Kushal Pal Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Anil Kumar, J.@mdashFacts as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner/Dr. Kushal Pal Singh who is retired officer of Indian Air Force had initially granted two arms licenses i.e. pistol/revolver bearing License No. N.P. Bore pistol/revolver No. 1283878, License No. SWRK 070223 issued by the District Magistrate, Gonda and Rifle No. 315 Bore bearing License No. 5785 DM/GSP/Punjab issued by District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, Punjab, the same were time and again, renewed by the licensing authority. In the month of January, 2013, he submitted an application for renewal of the said license before the opposite party No. 2/District Magistrate, Kheri where he is residing. But, no heed by the opposite party No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner has to obtain "No Objection Certificate" first from the authorities who had initially granted the said arms licenses only the renewal shall be considered. Accordingly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said action on the part of the opposite party No. 2 is contrary to the provisions as provided under Section 15 of the Arms Act, 1959, so a direction may be issued to the opposite party No. 2/licensing authority to renew the arms licenses of the petitioner keeping in view the report submitted in this regard by the competent authority/Tehsildar, without insisting upon the condition that No Objection Certificate has to be obtained from the authority concerned who had initially granted the said arms licenses.

2. Learned State Counsel on the basis of the material on record does not dispute the fact that petitioner had been granted arms licenses by the licensing authority as per the provisions as provided under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the same can be renewed as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Arms Act.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, the position which emerges out is that the petitioner who is retired Officer of Indian Air Force as Director General, Medical Services (AIR), had granted two arms license by the concerned licensing authority as per the provisions as provided under Section 13 of the Arms Act, thereafter, the same has been renewed from time to time. After his retirement from the Indian Air Force, he has settled at Kheri and living peacefully life. As the period of said arms licenses had expired, so he submitted an application for renewal after completing necessary formalities to the opposite party No. 2/District Magistrate, Kheri and in this regard, report has been submitted by the concerned authority/Tehsildar. But, his case for renewal of the arms license has not been considered by the opposite party No. 2 only on the ground that the petitioner has to obtain No Objection Certificate from the authority who had initially granted the said arms licenses.

4. Matter relating to renewal of arms license is provided under Section 15 of the Arms Act, which reads as under:--

"A license under Section 3 shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for a period of three years from the date on which it is granted:

Provided that such a license may be granted for a shorter period if the person by whom the license is required so desires or if the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing considers in any case that the license should be granted for a shorter period.

A license under any other provision of Chapter II shall, unless revoked earlier, continue in force for such period from the date on which it is granted as the licensing authority may in each case determine.

Every license shall, unless the licensing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides in any case, be renewable for the same period for which the license was originally granted and shall be so renewable from time to time, and the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 shall apply to the renewal of a license as they apply to the grant thereof."

5. From a combined reading of Sections 15 along with Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, the position which emerges out is that at the time of consideration an application for renewal of arms license, the licensing authority shall act within the ambit and scope of the provisions as provided under Section 13 and 14 of the Arms Act and Section 13 of the Arms Act deals with the procedure for grant of arms license as well as Section 14 provides for refusal of license.

6. From the bare perusal of the said sections, it is crystal clear that there is no requirement under law laid down by the Legislature to obtain "No Objection Certificate" from the authority who had initially granted the same at the time of renewal.

7. Keeping in view the above said facts as well as the fact that it is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The Court cannot rewrite, recast or re-frame the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the Courts. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words that are not there. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature the Court could not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency.

8. The Courts decide what the law is and not what it should be. The Courts of course adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature but cannot legislate. But to invoke judicial activism to set at naught legislative judgment is sub serve of the constitutional harmony and comity of instrumentalities. (See Union of India and another Vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, AIR 1992 SC 96 : (1991) 3 JT 608 : (1991) 2 SCALE 481 : (1992) 1 SCC 323 Supp : (1991) 3 SCR 873 , All India Radio Vs. Shri Santosh Kumar and Another, (1998) 1 AD 657 : AIR 1998 SC 941 : (1998) 1 JT 662 : (1998) 118 PLR 799 : (1998) 1 SCALE 538 : (1998) 3 SCC 237 : (1998) 1 SCR 702 : (1998) 1 UJ 431 : (1998) AIRSCW 701 : (1998) 1 Supreme 503 , Sakshi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2004 SC 3566 : (2004) 98 CLT 491 : (2004) CriLJ 2881 : (2004) 6 SCALE 15 : (2004) 5 SCC 518 : (2004) 2 SCR 723 Supp : (2005) 1 UJ 37 : (2004) AIRSCW 5223 : (2004) 7 Supreme 481 , Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2003) 183 CTR 99 : (2003) 262 ITR 278 : (2003) 5 SCC 590 , Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and Others, AIR 2003 SC 511 : (2002) 10 JT 55 : (2003) 2 SCC 111 : (2003) 1 UJ 80 and J.P. Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, AIR 2003 SC 1405 : (2003) 3 JT 169 : (2003) 3 SCALE 154 : (2003) 5 SCC 134 : (2003) SCC(L&S) 605 : (2003) 2 SCR 933 : (2003) 3 SLJ 252 : (2003) 2 UJ 897 : (2003) AIRSCW 1848 : (2003) 2 Supreme 856

9. In Nasiruddin and Others Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal, AIR 2003 SC 1543 : (2003) 4 CTC 284 : (2003) 2 JT 56 : (2003) 1 SCALE 658 : (2003) 2 SCC 577 : (2003) 1 SCR 634 : (2003) 2 UJ 781 : (2003) AIRSCW 1474 : (2003) AIRSCW 908 : (2003) 2 Supreme 472 : (2003) 2 Supreme 50 , the Supreme Court has held that the Court can iron cut of the creases but cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of provision is plain, unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract words to statute or read something into in which is not there. It cannot rewrite or recast the legislation.

10. Accordingly, once a person has been granted arms license, the same is to be renewed as per provisions for renewal as provided under Section 15 of the Arms Act and if a legislature has not provided the condition to obtain "No Objection Certificate" from the authority who had initially granted arms license at the time of renewal, then, the said condition cannot be imposed by the licensing authority at the time of renewal. So, the action on the part of the District Magistrate, Kheri/opposite party No. 2 thereby directing the petitioner to obtain "No Objection Certificate" from the authority who had initially granted his arms license prior for renewal is contrary to the provisions as provided under Section 15 of the Arms Act.

11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite party No. 2/District Magistrate, Kheri to renew of the arms licenses without imposing condition that the petitioner has to get first No Objection Certificate from the authority who had initially granted the said arms licenses. The said exercise shall be done by the opposite party No. 2, expeditiously, say, within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit.