*Upholds revocation against DDC Member
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 10: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that holding an arms licence is not a fundamental right under the Constitution and that public peace and safety take precedence over an individual’s privilege to keep firearms.
Moreover, the High Court upheld the cancellation of the arms licence of an elected District Development Council (DDC) member from Poonch for allegedly misusing his licensed pistol to threaten senior Government officers during an anti-encroachment operation.
Justice M A Chowdhary dismissed the petition filed by Wajid Bashir Khan, DDC member from Mendhar (B) constituency, seeking quashment of the orders of the District Magistrate Poonch and Divisional Commissioner Jammu revoking his Arms Licence.
The petitioner contended that the revocation order was solely based on the pendency of FIR No.208/2017 at Police Station Mendhar in which Sections 307 RPC and 3/25 Arms Act were later not proved against him. It was further submitted that mere pendency of criminal case cannot be a valid ground for cancellation under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Further, it was submitted that petitioner was not given a show-cause notice or hearing before cancellation, violating principles of natural justice.
However, respondents argued that the petitioner has a criminal background and revocation was in accordance with law and necessary for public safety.
After hearing both the sides, Justice M A Chowdhary observed, “it is well settled that grant of arms licence is neither a fundamental right nor there is fundamental right to carry arms. It is privilege conferred by the Arms Act, grant of licence is always subject to the satisfaction and discretion of the Licencing Authority”
“Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act permits suspension or revocation if deemed necessary for security of public peace or public safety. This was not a case of mere pendency of a criminal matter but one involving serious misuse of a firearm against Government officers on duty”, the High Court said, adding “preventive action is part of criminal law — authorities need not wait until actual harm occurs”.
“Prior hearing not mandatory when there is an immediate threat, as held by Full Benches of Allahabad High Court. The petitioner’s past criminal involvement in multiple FIRs further justified revocation.
Brandishing a pistol at an Executive Magistrate in the presence of SDM and SDPO demonstrated a threat not just to individuals but to public order”, the High Court said.
“A person who has not spared even local officers of administration from his wrath can hardly be expected to act responsibly with a firearm among the general public,” the Court remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner acted within law, their orders were legal and justified and no interference was warranted. The writ petition and connected applications were dismissed as being without merit.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
