Gun licence revoked over single FIR? Orissa High Court sets aside order, says authorities can’t act as per ‘sweet will’

Licence granted in 2019

• The case arose from a writ petition filed by one Sambit Padhy, a Khordha-based businessman, whose arms licence, originally granted on August 14, 2019, was valid until August 13, 2022.
• After applying for renewal on August 24, 2022, his request was rejected by the additional district magistrate on March 28, 2023.
• The rejection was based solely on a police report indicating his involvement in a 2022 criminal case relating to alleged illegal possession of minerals.
• An appeal filed before the revenue divisional commissioner (Central Division), Cuttack, was also dismissed on May 30, 2025, prompting the petitioner to move the high court.

‘Right to protect life flows from Article 21’

• The necessity to possess a firearm by any citizen arises only when it is found that the life of such a citizen is in danger.
• It is well known in law that under the constitutional scheme, the state is responsible to protect the life and liberty of every citizen as has been guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• At times it is not possible on the part of the state to provide security to each and every citizen whose life is in danger.
• Thus, keeping in view the threat perception to a citizen, the legislatures have enacted the Arms Act, 1959, thereunder providing grant of arms licence to a citizen for protection of his life and liberty, which is of paramount consideration.
• Such grant of licence, suspension and cancellation thereof are governed by the provisions contained in the Arms Act and the rules framed.
• No doubt the competent authority is required to keep in mind the grounds mentioned in Section 17 of the Arms Act.
• However, they are not expected to close their eyes with regard to the nature and gravity of the allegation made against the petitioner.
• Furthermore, the competent authority is under a legal obligation, in view of Section 13 of the Act, to grant a licence in genuine cases.
• This would be in furtherance of the constitutional guarantee to every citizen, under Article 21.

Justice A K Mohapatra ruled that licensing authorities do not enjoy “blanket, unbridled or arbitrary power” in granting or revoking arms licences.

Statutory scheme: No room for arbitrary power

• The judgment undertakes a detailed reading of the Arms Act, particularly Sections 13, 15, and 17, to clarify the legal framework of sections 13 and 14 which govern grant of licences.
• Section 15(3) creates a limited but enforceable right to renewal, unless reasons are recorded, and section 17 strictly defines grounds for suspension or cancellation.
• The court made it clear that once a licence is validly granted, its renewal cannot be denied casually.

‘FIR alone not enough’

In a key finding with wider implications, the court held that mere pendency of a criminal case is insufficient to cancel or deny renewal of an arms licence. It laid down a clear threshold test:

• Is the licensee actually involved in the offence?
• Was the licensed weapon used?
• Does the conduct pose a real threat to public peace or safety?

Without these factors, cancellation would be legally unsustainable.

In the present case, the court noted that only one criminal case was pending against the petitioner – no allegation of violence or assault, no claim that the firearm was misused and the case was still at the trial stage, with no conviction.

Report favouring petitioner ignored

• A critical flaw identified by the court was the authorities’ failure to consider a detailed police inquiry report dated March 1, 2023.
• The report had concluded there were valid grounds for licence renewal.
• The petitioner was not involved in disputes likely to disturb peace.
• Grant of licence would not affect social equilibrium.
• Renewal was recommended.
• Despite this, both the licensing and appellate authorities rejected the application without addressing or rebutting the report.
• The court held that while authorities may disagree with such reports, they must provide “sound reasons in writing” which was absent in this case.

Failure to apply Section 17

The high court found that the impugned orders did not satisfy any of the conditions laid down under Section 17 of the Arms Act, which permits cancellation only in specific situations such as:

• Threat to public peace or safety.
• Suppression of material facts.
• Violation of licence conditions
• Legal disqualification
• The court observed that none of these grounds were established, rendering the authorities’ action legally untenable.

Fresh consideration ordered

• Setting aside both orders dated March 28, 2023 and May 30, 2025, the court directed the competent authority to reconsider the renewal application.
• Gave the petitioner two weeks to approach the authority.
• Mandated a fresh, reasoned decision within four weeks.
• The court emphasised that the reconsideration must strictly adhere to statutory provisions and its observations.