Compliance with Rule 25(2) Arms Rules 2016 Mandatory for Transfer of Licence to Heirs

The petitioner, Arun Kumar Mangal, challenged an order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh (Respondent No. 1).

The impugned order transferred Arms Licence No. 89/1983, originally held by the deceased licensee Shri Bhagwandas Mangal, to his grandson, Prateek Kumar Mangal (Respondent No. 3).

The petitioner, being the son and legal heir of the deceased, contended that the transfer was executed without his consent or notice.

Respondent No. 3 argued the transfer was valid based on a Will executed by the deceased, citing harassment by his sons and a pending dispute regarding an arms dealership.

1. Whether the transfer of an arms licence to one legal heir is valid without the nomination and "no-objection" declaration from all other legal heirs as mandated by the Arms Rules?

2. Whether the licensing authority is required to follow the principles of natural justice, including issuing notice to all legal heirs, before transferring a deceased person's licence?

The court primarily applied Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016, which governs the grant of licences to legal heirs.

Rule 25(2) dictates that when a licensee leaves more than one legal heir, a single heir may apply for the licence only if nominated by all others, accompanied by a "no-objection" declaration, an indemnity bond, and a death certificate.

The court also relied on the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring the licensing authority to afford all affected legal heirs an opportunity of hearing.

The Court observed that under Rule 25(2) of the Arms Rules, 2016, the nomination of the applicant by all remaining legal heirs is a mandatory prerequisite.

In this case, there was no evidence in the impugned order that Respondent No. 3 had been nominated by the other heirs or that a "no-objection" declaration was submitted.

the court noted that the licensing authority failed to implead or issue notice to the petitioner and other legal heirs, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The Court also highlighted that the licensing authority did not reference the alleged "Will" in its order, nor did it obtain a police report from the Superintendent of Police regarding the status of the other legal heirs.

Consequently, the procedural requirements of Rule 25 were not satisfied.

The Court set aside the order dated 25.06.2018 and remitted the matter back to the licensing authority for fresh consideration.

The licensing authority is directed to issue notice to all legal heirs and afford them an opportunity of hearing, completing the exercise within eight weeks.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.