Arun Kumar Mangal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22178
1 WP-20351-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
rd
ON THE 23 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 20351 of 2019
ARUN KUMAR MANGAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Dudawat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
Shri Santosh Agrawal- Advocate for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
The instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
is directed against the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by respondent No.1 in
Case No. F-16-371/2017/B-1/Two, whereby Arms Licence No.89/1983,
originally held by late Shri Bhagwandas Mangal, was transferred in favour of
respondent No.3- Prateek Kumar Mangal S/o Shri Ajay Mangal, R/o Sadar
Bazar, Morar, Gwalior, who is the grandson of the deceased licensee.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the aforesaid
order, has referred to Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016 and submitted that
sub-rule (2) thereof specifically provides that where a licensee leaves behind
more than one legal heir and the legal heirs decide amongst themselves to
retain the arm or arms of the deceased, one of the legal heirs nominated by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/24/2026
11:07:28 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22178
2 WP-20351-2019
all the other legal heirs may apply for a licence under sub-rule (1), along

with a declaration of no-objection from the remaining legal heirs, an
indemnity bond executed by the applicant giving full details of the licence
and the arm or arms endorsed thereupon, as well as a copy of the death
certificate of the deceased licensee.
3. It is submitted that, in the present case, respondent No.3 was never
nominated by the other legal heirs and no declaration of no-objection was
submitted by them. It is further submitted that merely on an application
preferred by respondent No.3, the licence was granted without issuing any
notice to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity of hearing. Learned
counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order, being per se illegal and
contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Rules, deserves to be
quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
petitioner is admittedly one of the sons of late Shri Bhagwandas Saraf and,
being one of his legal heirs and successors, had a legal right to procure the
licence. It is submitted that the same could not have been transferred in
favour of respondent No.3 without following the procedure prescribed under
Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016. However, without considering the
principles of natural justice, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and
without ascertaining the complete particulars of the legal heirs of late Shri
Bhagwandas Mangal, the impugned order has been passed, which is wholly
unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/24/2026
11:07:28 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22178
3 WP-20351-2019
submitted that, no illegality has been committed by the licensing authority in

issuing the said order, as the weapon in question was acquired by respondent
No.3 on the basis of a Will executed by Lt. Bhagwandas, wherein it has been
specifically mentioned that the present petitioner and the other sons of the
deceased had harassed him to such an extent that he was constrained to
bequeath all his property, including the arm, in favour of the present
respondent No.3. He further submitted that a similar licence relating to the
arms dealership is also sub judice before the Hon'ble Apex Court at the
instance of respondent No.3, wherein the order passed in the writ appeal,
directing the arms dealership licence be handed over to the present petitioner,
has been stayed and the said stay is still operative.
6. He further submitted that the grandfather of respondent No.3 had
also moved a petition before this Court against the alleged harassment
committed by his sons, including the present petitioner, wherein a direction
was issued to respondent No.3 to approach the appropriate authority for
redressal of his grievance. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid
circumstance is indicative of the fact that the deceased, late Shri
Bhagwandas, was not happy with the petitioner and his other sons and,
therefore, had bequeathed his entire interest, including the weapon in
question, in favour of respondent No.3. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of
the present petition.
7. After hearing rival contentions and on perusing the material
available on record, this Court finds that the procedure for grant of licence to
the legal heirs of a deceased licensee is provided under Rule 25 of the Arms
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/24/2026
11:07:28 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22178
4 WP-20351-2019
Rules 2016, for reference it is quoted hereinbelow:-

"25. Grant of licenses to legal heirs. (1)The licensing authority may
grant a license -
(a)after the death of the licensee, to his legal heir; or
(b)in any other case, on the licensee attaining the age of seventy years
or on holding the firearm for twenty five years, whichever is earlier, to any
legal heir nominated by him:
Provided that notwithstanding the provisions contained in rule 12 of
these rules, the licensing authority may grant a license to such legal heir if the
eligibility conditions under the Act and these rules are fulfilled by the said
legal heir and there are no adverse remarks in the police report.
(2)Where a licensee leaves behind more than one legal heir and the
legal heirs decide amongst themselves to retain the arm or arms of the
deceased, one of the legal heirs nominated by all other legal heirs may apply
for a license under sub-rule (1) along with the following documents, namely:-
(i) a declaration of no-objection from the remaining legal heirs;
(ii)an indemnity bond executed by the applicant giving full details of
the license and the arm or arms endorsed thereupon; and
(iii)a copy of the death certificate of the deceased licensee.
(3)Where the legal heirs decide to dispose of the arm or arms endorsed
on the license of the deceased licensee, they may apply to the licensing
authority for grant of a limited period permission to sell the arm or arms,
within the time allowed by such authority, to any licensed dealer or to any
other person entitled to possess an arm under these rules.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this rule, 'legal heir' includes
husband, wife, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother, sister and
grandchildren of the licensee or the deceased licensee."
8. In sub rule (2) of the aforesaid Rules it is provided that when the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/24/2026
11:07:28 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22178
5 WP-20351-2019
licensee leaves behind more than one legal heir, the legal heirs amongst

themselves can take a decision as to who shall retain the arm or arms of the
deceased and the said legal heir so nominated by all the other legal heirs,
may apply for a licence under sub rule (1) and along with the said
application, he shall submit following documents, namely:-
(i) a declaration of no-objection from the remaining legal heirs,
(ii) an indemnity bond executed by the applicant giving full details of
the license and the arm or arms endorsed thereupon and
(iii) a copy of the death certificate of the deceased licensee.
9. In the present case, from a perusal of the impugned order, it is not
reflected that respondent No.3 was nominated by all the legal heirs in the
manner contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016.
It is also not reflected from the impugned order that the licence was granted
to respondent No.3 on the basis of any Will executed by the deceased
licensee. Further, it has not been brought on record that the petitioner and the
other legal heirs were impleaded before the licensing authority or were
issued any notice before the grant of licence. There is also no material to
indicate that any report was obtained from the Superintendent of Police
regarding the existence of other legal heirs or absence of any objection on
their part. Thus, when the petitioner and the other legal heirs were neither
noticed nor afforded an opportunity to put forth their case, and when
respondent No.3 was not shown to have been nominated by all the other
legal heirs for the purpose of applying for a licence under sub-rule (1) of
Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016, the impugned order cannot be said to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/24/2026
11:07:28 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:22178
6 WP-20351-2019
legally sustainable.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.06.2018, is hereby set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the licensing authority for fresh
consideration of the application preferred by respondent No.3, in accordance
with law and the provisions of Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016. The
licensing authority shall issue notice to all the legal heirs of the deceased
licensee and thereafter consider the application afresh after affording due
opportunity of hearing to all concerned persons.
11. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.
13. E-copy/certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
VJ

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/24/2026
11:07:28 AM