- (1.) The petitioner is a partner of a firm which is based in Kolkata, but conducts business in different parts of this country. THE main business (ft the petitioner is running dealership of arms and ammunitions. THE petitioner possesses a .32 bore revolver manufactured by Smith & Weson, under a valid licence for the same in the State of West Bengal. Under the provisions of Arms Act, 1959, it is permissible for the licensing authorities to restrict the area within the country for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunitions. It appears that licences are issued for a district, a State or the country as a whole. THE licence of the petitioner, which he claims to be holding since the year June, 1997, has been granted for the State of West Bengal only. He has made a representation to the Assistant Secretary, Home, Police Department praying for extension of the area validity of the licence to cover the entire territory of India which has been rejected. It is this decision of the authorities which is the subject-matter of dispute in this writ petition.
(2.) This is the second time the writ petitioner has approached this Court with this grievance. The prayer of the petitioner for a licence covering the entire country was originally rejected on 24th February, 1998. Thereafter, successive representations were made and correspondence exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent authorities, through which various particulars were disclosed by the petitioner. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that on 16th December, 2003, the petitioner was informed that the documents submitted by him were not sufficient to justify his prayer for area extension. THIS order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition being W.P. No.4549 (W) of 2004. THIS writ petition was disposed of by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court on 1st April, 2004 with the following direction: "I, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Home (Police) Department and grant liberty to the petitioner to submit a (fresh representation with all documents to the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Home Police) Department and if such a representation is filed by the petitioner the said Joint Secretary shall consider and dispose of such representation in accordance with law, but after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his representative and by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a month from the date of submission of such representation by the petitioner." A fresh representation was made by the petitioner before the Special Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of West Bengal (respondent No.2) with certain documents on 12th April, 2004. The respondent No. 2 however again rejected the petitioner's application for extension of area validity of the licence, recommending instead issuance of transit permit. This order of rejection stipulates: "I, the undersigned heard the petitioner on 02.07.2004. Some queries were made to Commissioner of Police, Kolkata in the matter. The reply was submitted by the CP., Kolkata. Again the CP., Kolkata was requested to state whether a transit permit to carry arms might solve the problem of the petitioner in stead of giving him All India arms licence. The CP., Kolkata submitted his suggestion. I have gone through the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court, Kolkata and the representation of the petitioner. I have also gone through all the papers & documents of this Govt. file including the report from CP., Kolkata. I am of the opinion that a transit permit to carry arms in favour of Shri Biswajit Biswas, the petitioner of this case in stead of extension of area validity of his arms licence No.1378/June/97/Cal will meet the ends of justice better. Hence the licensing authority is directed to act accordingly on receipt of prayer for transit permit from the petitioner." The reason for such rejection, however, appears to have been influenced by a memorandum dated 29th September, 2003 issued on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, a copy of which has been made "R2" to the affidavit-in-opposition of the Assistant Secretary of Home (Police) Department- Government of West Bengal (respondent No.4). The Commissioner of Police had recommended against extension of the area validity of the licence on the ground that annual income of the petitioner did not suggest his claim of carrying huge amount of cash. In the present writ petition it is this order of the respondent No.2 dated 12th April, 2004 which is under challenge. Acquisition and possession of firearms is strictly regulated in this country and no one can carry the firearms without a valid licence issued under the said Act. Section 14 of the said Act specifies the grounds on which a licence can be rejected. The said provision stipulates: 14. Refusal of licences.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant- (a) licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition; (b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II- (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe- (1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or (2) to be of unsound mind, or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. (2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.
(3.) In the light of the above referred provisions of the statute and the guideline issued by the Central Government the impugned order is required to be tested. So far as the question of territorial operation of a licence is concerned, the guideline for the same is contained in a memorandum issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of INdia bearing No.V-11026/106/ 94, Arms dated 11th October, 1995, a copy of which has been made Annexure "R3" to affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition. IN this memorandum, it has been specified: "Applications made for grant of arms licence for all INdia operation should also be judiciously examined by the District Magistrate and in case he feels that the applicant's need for a licence for carrying the weapon on all INdia basis is genuine and the applicant deserves to be granted a licence for all INdia operation, he should forward his recommendations (giving full justification) to the State Government/U.T. Administration concerned for further consideration. On receipt of such recommendations, the State Govemment/U.T. Administration should examine each case judiciously and then either accept or reject the grant of licence as recommended by the District Magistrate." The concerned authority has observed that the petitioner could be permitted to carry firearms throughout the territory of India on a transit licence basis.;