01Facts
The petitioner, Arun Kumar Mangal, challenged an order dated 25.06.2018 passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh (Respondent No. 1).
¶ 1The 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).
¶ 1The petitioner, being the son and legal heir of the deceased, contended that the transfer was executed without his consent or notice.
¶ 3-4Respondent 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.
¶ 5-602Issues
i.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, 7-8ii.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?
¶ 4, 903Law Applied
The court primarily applied Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016, which governs the grant of licences to legal heirs.
¶ 7Rule 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.
¶ 8The court also relied on the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring the licensing authority to afford all affected legal heirs an opportunity of hearing.
¶ 904Reasoning
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.
¶ 8In 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.
¶ 9the 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.
¶ 9The 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.
¶ 9Consequently, the procedural requirements of Rule 25 were not satisfied.
¶ 905Holding
The Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable due to procedural non-compliance and violation of natural justice.
¶ 9-10The Court set aside the order dated 25.06.2018 and remitted the matter back to the licensing authority for fresh consideration.
¶ 10The licensing authority is directed to issue notice to all legal heirs and afford them an opportunity of hearing, completing the exercise within eight weeks.
¶ 10-11The petition was disposed of accordingly.
¶ 12Original Court PDF
Arun Kumar MangalvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
