H.R.PANWAR, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, are heard and decided together taking the facts of SBCW No. 3959/208 as a leading case.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these writ petitions are that the petitioners were initially granted Arms Licence for Muzzle Loading Gun (for short the ML Gun' hereinafter) which were issued in favour of the petitioners by the Tehsildar of the area and in the case of the petitioner Jodhsingh by Tehsildar, Srikaranpur. Grant of ML Gun licence by the tehsildar has not been questioned by the respondent State and therefore, to the extent of grant of ML Gun licence there is no infirmity and such grant of ML Gun licence is not under challenge. However, subsequent thereto, the petitioner applied for change of the bore of the gun before the Additional District Collector, Sriganganagar who issued the Outside Licence of NP Bore vide Licence No. 14/2003. However, by order Annex. 4, the respondent District Magistrate, Sriganganagar suspended the licence issued under Section 13(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short vthe Act of 1959' hereinafter) and the petitioner was directed to deposit the arms with the concerned police station. The petitioner submitted reply to the notice vide Annex. 5. By order Annex. 6 dated 11.2.2008 the respondent District Magistrate, Sriganganagar cancelled the licence granted in favour of the petitioned The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Division, Bikaner. By order Annex. 7, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Hence these petitions. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents contending therein that there has been a gross illegality in violation of the procedure in the border district Sriganganagar for conversion of the bore of the arms licence which was commonly known as Arms Scam by incompetent authority i.e. Additional District Magistrate, Sriganganagar and therefore, after giving show cause notice to the arms licence holder their licences have been cancelled. The orders cancelling the licences were subject to the appeals and the appellate authority rightly dismissed the appeals. It has further been stated that no citizen have a right to claim the arms licence. The arms licence is an privilege conferred by the Act of 1959 and it is purely discretionary for the licensing authority to grant/refuse the arms licence and even after grant of the licence, the competent authority is empowered to revoke/suspend such licence in the event of violation of relevant provisions. In these cases there had been gross violation of the procedure as envisaged under Rule 51 of the Arms Rules of 1962 (for short 'the Rules of 1962' hereinafter) as also the Act of 1959. Neither the applicants seeking change of the bore were on the prescribed proforma as required under Rule 51 of the Rules of 1962 nor there had been any police verification. More particularly being a border area, a police verification by the CID (Intelligence) is required as per the procedure provided under Section 13 of the Act of 1959 r/w Rule 50 of the Rules of 1962 in view of the order issued by the respondent Home Department dated 17.4.1996 and it was heavily contended in the reply that the Additional District Magistrate is subordinate to the District Magistrate and was only competent to sign the licence granted by the licensing authority i.e. District Magistrate and therefore, in these cases, the licences were granted by the Additional District' Magistrate, having no authority under the law for grant of Arms licence and therefore, the respondent District Magistrate was justified in cancelling the arms licence and on an appeal, the appellate authority was also justified in dismissing the appeal. However, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, while cancelling the licence, the licensing authority i.e. District Magistrate has left it open for filing a fresh application under the Act of 1959 and the Rules of 1962 if the applicants so wish and by granting such a liberty, the District Magistrate, Sriganganagar, the licensing authority has made it clear in its order that now if the applicants wish to have an arm licence the may apply in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1959 and the Rules of 1962 and if such applications are made, the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties.;