HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.23606 of 2005 Date : 03-12-2014 Between:
M.Sohailuddin, S/o.Md. Hashimuddin, 37 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.6-3-1239/1, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, rep. by its Under-Secretary, Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi and others … Petitioner … Respondents ORDER:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.23606 of 2005 This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the proceedings of the 1st respondent in File No.52- 1/05-SP-1, dated 07.10.2005. By virtue of the impugned proceedings, the 1st respondent rejected the request of the petitioner for treating him as a ‘Renowned Shooter’ on the information given by the Sports Authority of India that the petitioner would not fall under the said category.
Heard Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India, apart from perusing the material available on record.
The pleaded case of the petitioner herein is as under:
The petitioner is an Advocate by profession and he is also a Rifle Shooter and he participated in various rifle shooting competitions including National Shooting Championship Competition held in the years 2003 and 2004. As per the grading, the petitioner is graded as a ‘Renowned Rifle Shooter’. The petitioner held Arms Licence bearing No.943/Panjagutta obtained from the Commissioner of Police under the provisions of the Arms Act and the Rules framed thereunder for the weapons, viz., (1) 12 Bore DBBL Gun No.1994/50509 (made in England); (2) 30.06 NP Bore Rifle No.117918 (Mouser); and (3) 0.458 MP Bore Magnum Rifle No.32079 (Browning). Being a Renowned Shooter, the petitioner is entitled to import any Non-prohibited Bore Rifle and 15,000 rounds/catridges. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide notification in S.O.667(E) dated 12.09.1985, framed the Rules in terms of Section 41 of the Arms Act, 1959, exempting various categories of persons from operation of Sections 3 and 9 of the Arms Act, 1959, subject to certain conditions. Explanation to clause 4(d) of the notification dated 12.09.1985 defines the term ‘Renowned Shooter’ and schedule to the said notification provides the details of weapons/ammunitions which a Renowned Shooter can import. On 23.08.2004, the petitioner submitted an application to the 3rd respondent-National Rifle Association of India for import of “308 Win Krico” make rifle and ammunition as per the procedure. The 3rd respondent has to route the application through the office of the 4th respondent and which authority has to issue necessary recommendation, and, thereafter, the application should be forwarded to the 1st respondent-Union Government, which is the competent authority to grant licence and recommend to the 2nd respondent- Director General of Foreign Trade for issuance of import exemptions. The 3rd respondent-National Rifle Association of India, vide letter dated 08.10.2004, required the petitioner to file a fresh affidavit on Rs.10/- stamp paper with certain clarifications. On 18.10.2004, the petitioner sent a revised affidavit through courier service and the 3rd respondent acknowledged the same. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent-National Rifle Association of India announced the schedule for National Shooting Championship Competition for the year 2005 from 18.10.2005 to 25.10.2005. Complaining of delay in taking action on the application of the petitioner, petitioner, earlier filed W.P.No.19000 of 2005 before this Court, and this Court, by way of an order dated 13.08.2005, disposed of the said writ petition, directing the 1st respondent-Government of India to take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 23.08.2004 and pass necessary orders thereon, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Thereafter, the 1st respondent- Government of India passed an order, vide F.No.52/1/05-SP/1 dated 07.10.2005, rejecting the request of the petitioner herein for treating him as a ‘Renowned Shooter’.
This writ petition calls in question the legal sustainability of the said order dated 07.10.2005. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order under challenge in the writ petition is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, void, without jurisdiction and contrary to the instructions issued by the Government of India on 12.09.1985, as amended on 02.08.2002. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the Government of India, vide notification in S.O.667(E) dated 12.09.1985 issued under Section 41 of the Arms Act, exempted various classes of persons specified in column No.2 of the schedule from the operation of the provisions of the Act. It is further submitted that serial No.4 annexed to the said notification deals with ‘Renowned Shooter’ (Full Bore) and Rifle Shooter, in order to import Target Rifle (Full Bore), as in the petitioner’s case, must qualify for exemption by virtue of performance in a rifle event and shall hold a certificate issued by the appropriate certifying body as specified in the notification. It is further contended by the learned counsel that as per the proviso to the instructions dated 12.09.1985, the certifying body is the currently serving General Secretary of the National Rifle Association or the Indian Olympic Association in case of Renowned Shooter. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that explanation 4(d) of the instructions defines ‘Renowned Shooter’ which means that a person who has achieved a rank amongst the first fifteen positions in a National Championship in an open Men’s Event or open Ladies’ Event or open Civilians’ Event and the term ‘Renowned Shooter’ is re- defined, vide notification S.O.831(E) dated 02.08.2002, and as per the same, the ‘Renowned Shooter’ means ‘a person who is amongst the top ranking twenty five shooters in a National Championship in an open Men’s Event or open Ladies’ Event or open Civilians’ Event’, provided that where the number of participants in the event in question is less than 30, the person should have achieved a position of half of the total number of participants in the event, or better. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in the 47th National Shooting Championship Competition (Big Bore) held at Indore during the period from 14th to 19th March, 2004, the petitioner participated and secured 15th position, and on 14.05.2004, the Secretary General, National Rifle Association of India issued certificate No.TRG/CERT/29 dated 14.05.2004, which evidences the participation of the petitioner and his rank as ‘15’. It is further argued that in the said certificate, it was clarified that the petitioner herein was a ‘Renowned Shot’ in terms of Government of India’s notification No.147/94-CUS dated 13.07.1994 and the said certificate is in consonance with the instructions of the Ministry of Home Affairs. It is also submitted that as per the procedure, petitioner’s claim requires to be routed through the 1st respondent Union of India and once the competent authority, i.e., National Rifle Association of India, certifies, the 1st respondent or 4th respondent have no role to decide a person as ‘Renowned Shooter’ or not except to process the application for grant of import licence. Eventually, it is emphatically contended by the learned counsel that in view of all these aspects, the reasoning in the impugned order is incorrect and contrary to the Government of India instructions.
Per contra, it is vehemently and strenuously argued by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents, that there is no illegality nor any infirmity in the order impugned, as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 07.10.2005 makes it quite limpid that except saying that the Sports Authority of India informed that the petitioner would not fall under ‘Renowned Shooter’ category, the 1st respondent did not assign any of other reasons in terms of the instructions contained in the above mentioned notifications nor any one of the respondents filed counter for the present writ petition, justifying the impugned action nor any other instructions issued subsequently have been brought to the notice of this Court, which enable the 1st respondent to resort to the impugned action. It is the specific stand of the petitioner herein that the instructions referred to above enable only the General Secretary of the National Rifle Association or the Indian Olympic Association and the Sports Authority of India has no role to say. It is manifestly evident from a reading of the impugned order that the 1st respondent did not consider any of the instructions referred to above, and in the considered opinion of this Court, the 1st respondent did not assign any cogent and convincing reasons for passing the impugned order and for rejecting the case of the petitioner herein.
For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the notifications and the instructions contained therein referred to supra, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the 1st respondent issued vide F.No.52-1/05-SP-I dated 07.10.2005 and the matter is remitted to the respondents herein for consideration of the request of the petitioner herein afresh in accordance with law. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents herein within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
A.V.SESHA SAI, J Date: 03.12.2014
siva
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.23606 of 2005 Date : 03-12-2014 siva