Prayagraj, 01 December: The Allahabad High Court in one of its orders said that as per Rule 32 of the Arms Rules 2016, it is necessary for the judicial authority to decide whether there has been a violation of the relevant rules or not before cancelling an arms license.
The court stated, βA reading of Rule 32 clearly indicates that before cancelling a license under Rule 32, the authority must form an opinion as to whether the licensed weapon was not properly equipped with safety equipment or whether it was brandished, discharged, or whether any blank firing occurred in a public place or a weapon-free zone. Such consideration and opinion are mandatory for the application of Rule 32 under the 2016 Rules.β
Justice Kunal Ravi Singh issued this order on a petition filed by petitioner Yogendra Prasad. The petitioner was granted a revolver license on July 16, 2005. However, by notice dated September 22, 2020, the District Magistrate of Ghazipur suspended the license and directed the petitioner to surrender his weapon. The petitioner responded by denying the allegations. However, on August 17, 2020, the SHO of Ghazipur seized the weapon. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Police, Varanasi, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition in the High Court.
The Court examined the Arms Rules, 2016. After examining Rule 32, the Court held that a mandatory condition for license cancellation under Section 32 was that the adjudicating authority must determine whether the above conditions had been violated before cancelling the license. In the petitioner’s case, the Court found that the authority had not taken such measures.
The High Court held that such a finding was clearly absent from the order, and therefore, the DM’s order was liable to be set aside on this basis alone. Without clearly specifying which sub-rule of Rule 32 the petitioner was violating, the petitioner could not be subjected to the cancellation of his license and the confiscation of his weapon. The High Court accordingly set aside the order and allowed the petition.