1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3814/2008 Hussain Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ......... Date of Order : 12th February, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. M.K.Garg for the petitioner. Mr. B.L.Tiwari, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders Annex.16 dated 25.1.2006 and Annex.17 dated 31.10.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Hanumangarh and the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner respectively. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner applied for Arms Licence for M.L.Gun. The petitioner's father Lal Khan was issued an Arms Licence for gun vide Annex.2, however, the petitioner's father died on 05.01.2003, a death certificate to that effect has been placed on record as Annex.3. After the death of the petitioner's father, the 2 petitioner applied for M.L. Gun Licence so that the gun which the petitioner's father had under a valid licence can be held by the petitioner on grant of such licence. The petitioner applied for licence in the prescribed proforma before the competent authority. A verification was sought from the Superintendent of Police (CID), in pursuance thereof, the police verification report Annex.7 was given by the office of the Additional Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), Jaipur informing that as per the record available on computer, no objectionable facts came against the petitioner. However, it was left to the licensing authority to verify the character and criminal record at its own and proceed with the matter. There was no crime report registered against the petitioner, but only once he was arrested under Section 151 CR.P.C., a preventive arrest for prevention of breach of peace, though earlier a FIR was registered for the offence under Section 379 IPC but the complainant later came and submitted that under some wrong belief he has submitted the report and police submitted negative final report which came to be accepted by the Court. Learned Additional Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the orders impugned. Having carefully gone through the material on record, in my view, there being nothing adverse to the petitioner, even the petitioner did not have the adverse criminal 3 antecedents. Merely because he was put under preventive arrest under Section 151 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. More so, the authorities below have not come to the conclusion that grant of arms licence for M.L. Gun would result in danger to public safety or peace. In this view of the matter, the authorities below fell in error in declining to grant licence for M.L. Gun more particularly in the situation that the petitioner's father had a licence for M.L. Gun and has expired and the petitioner inherited the gun but without licence he cannot be allowed to possess the same. In the circumstances, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned Annex.16 dated 25.1.2006 and Annex.17 dated 31.10.2007 passed by District Magistrate, Hanumangarh and the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner respectively are set aside and quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent District Magistrate, Hanumangarh to consider and decide afresh the issue of grant of arms licence for M.L. Gun in respect of the petitioner. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp