Madhya Pradesh High Court sets aside arms-licence cancellations after 135 holders were covered by a common order without individual assessment

The petitioners challenged the Collector’s order dated 23 September 2025 cancelling their arms licences and the Commissioner, Morena’s order dated 23 February 2026 dismissing their appeal

They contended that the licences were cancelled through a common order covering 135 persons, without individual consideration of their replies or circumstances, and that the criminal cases relied on did not involve misuse of their licensed firearms

The State opposed the petition, relying on the petitioners’ alleged criminal background and the risk of future misuse

1. Whether the licensing authority could cancel the petitioners’ arms licences under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, without material and a reasoned satisfaction that their continued possession of firearms threatened public peace or public safety

2. Whether the Collector and appellate authority adequately considered the petitioners’ individual circumstances, replies, and grounds of appeal

3. Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act

Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 permits suspension or revocation of an arms licence where, on relevant material, the licensing authority is satisfied that this is necessary for the security of public peace or public safety; mere registration of a criminal case or general apprehension of future misuse is insufficient by itself

The Court relied on *Abdul Saleem v. State of M.P. and Others*, 2019(3) MPLJ 332, and *Gajendra Singh v. State of M.P. and Others*, 2020(2) MPLJ 441, for the requirements of relevant material, reasoned satisfaction, and application of mind

A licensing decision must address the individual licensee’s circumstances, and the appellate authority must independently consider the material grounds raised

Article 226 jurisdiction may be exercised where the challenge concerns non-application of mind, absence of the statutory satisfaction, and breach of natural justice, notwithstanding an appeal under Section 18

The Collector’s common order did not show individual consideration of the petitioners’ circumstances or replies, nor did it discuss any use or misuse of their licensed firearms or conduct showing a threat to public peace or safety

The criminal cases relied on were not shown to involve the licensed weapons, and their mere existence could not establish the statutory condition under Section 17(3)(b)

The Commissioner’s order likewise failed to address the petitioners’ specific grounds or make independent findings on the requisite threat

Given these deficiencies, the Court considered intervention under Article 226 appropriate

It set aside the Collector’s order insofar as it related to the petitioners and the Commissioner’s appellate order, and remitted the matter to the Collector, Morena, for fresh consideration on the merits after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned order in accordance with law

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioners’ claims