CW 67/99 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.67/1999 RamjilalVersus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 25/02/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Tanvir Ahmed for Mr, Bhanwar Bagri, for petitioner Mr. Chetan Bairwa, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent-State Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.07/08/95 (Ann.1) of District Magistrate & Collector, Dholpur and so also order dt. 17/07/98 of appellate authority (Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, whereby application of petitioner seeking renewal of arm license was rejected. Petitioner was holding 12 bore gun bearing No.56872 & 11 live cartridges, for which he was having a license (No.122/69) under Indian Arms Act, 1959 (“Arms Act”) valid upto 31/12/91. However, petitioner could not get the license renewed and immediately when it came to his notice of its expiry, he deposited and surrendered his arms alongwith live cartridges & belt in police station Kanchanpur (Bari-Dholpur) on 01/08/93 as alleged in the petitioner. He therefore, submitted application dt. 23/07/93 seeking renewal of his license, which was rejected vide order dt.11/04/94 on the premise CW 67/99 //2// that it was filed after inordinate delay. However, as averred in para 3 of appeal (Ann.2) petitioner also submitted application for fresh arms license which too was rejected vide order dt.07/08/95 (Ann.1) against which petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP-5749/95 which was disposed of vide order dt.08/01/96 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Arms Act and further observed that if appeal is preferred before appellate authority alongwith certified copy of the order within two weeks, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of latches and be decided within three months. Accordingly petitioner preferred appeal (Ann.2) wherein appellate authority without examining merits, observed that since arms license stood expired way back on 31/12/91 and no effective steps were taken for its renewal; and accordingly rejected the appeal vide order dt.17/07/98 (Ann.3). Counsel for petitioner submits that licenses are to be renewed U/s 15 of Arms Act and if the licensing authority for good reasons is not inclined to renew the license, was under obligation to record reasons in writing while in instant case, neither licensing authority nor the appellate authority recorded any reasons in CW 67/99 //3// writing in not considering his application for renewal of license despite the directions of this Court in earlier petition to decide the appeal on merits. Government Counsel submits that if petitioner was so careless and he had not taken effective steps for renewal of license within time; such persons are not supposed to hold arms and there was no error committed in rejecting his application for renewal of license. I have considered contentions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance examined material on record. Petitioner was holding an Arms license No.122/69 having validity upto 31/12/91 and when he failed to get his license renewed, he surrendered arms & live cartridges with concerned police station and submitted application for renewal of license which was to be considered by the authority U/s 15 of Arms Act. However, it appears from the order of District Collector and so also appellate order that his application for renewal of license has not been considered on merits but has been rejected only on the ground of delay and latches holding that he was careless and submitted application for renewal after a lapse of 18 CW 67/99 //4// months of expiry of the validity of the license. Suffice it to say that once there was an order of this Court in earlier petition (supra) to decide appeal on merits, it was expected from appellate authority to examine on merits as to whether petitioner was entitled for renewal of his license U/s 15 of Arms Act, which has not been looked into while deciding appeal preferred by him. Even U/S 15(3) of Arms Act, licensing authority is under legal obligation to record reasons in writing if it arrives at the conclusion not to renew license; and appellate order does not disclose reasons, which may deny petitioner from renewal of license which he held for sufficient long time since 1969 till 31/12/91. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Appellate order dt.17/07/98 (Ann.3) is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellate authority is directed to decide appeal (Ann.2) of petitioner afresh on merits taking note of observations (supra). The parties may appear on 30/03/09 alongwith a copy of this order, before appellate authority who may decided the appeal on merits within three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/67CW99Fb24.doc