JUDGMENT Amitava Lala, J.
1. By order dated 4th October, 2007 the writ petition has been dismissed by learned Single Judge from which Special Appeal has been made. The contention of the appellant is that she applied for licence of dealership of arm but not for holding any arm licence. State has granted the permission subject to verification by the District Magistrate concerned. The District Magistrate has found that there is/are criminal charge/s against the husband of the appellant. Therefore, the grant of licence was refused. According to the learned Single Judge, this has been correctly done by the authority. The appellant, by preferring this appeal, contended that firstly, she separated herself from her husband; and secondly, she has applied for licence of dealership of arm but not to hold the arm for her personal use. Therefore, if such refusal is made, it will be hit by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
2. We cannot appreciate the stand of the appellant when we find that there is nonspecific document that the wife has formally separated from her husband. On the other hand, we find that each and every application has been made by her saying that she is wife of Shailesh Kumar Chaturvedi. Therefore, first stand of the appellant does not sustain. So far as dealership is concerned, when there is criminal antecedent available in the family, it is obligatory upon the authority to take note of such fact before granting any licence. According to us, Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India can not be the unfettered right of a person to carry on any occupation, trade or business. It is subject to the reasonable restrictions as under Article 19(6) as quoted hereunder:
(6) Nothing in Sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,:
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.
3. Chapter II of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred as the "Act") made provisions for acquisition, possession, manufacture, sale, import, export and transport of arms and ammunition. Section 9 of such Chapter specifically deals with sale or transfer including others. Section 9(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) speak that no person, who has been sentenced on conviction of any offence involving violence or moral turpitude to imprisonment for any term at any time during a period of five years after the expiration of the sentence; or who has been ordered to execute under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure a bond for keeping the peace or for good behaviour, at any time during the term of the bond, shall acquire, have in possession or carry any firearm or ammunition shall be eligible to sale or transfer etc. Even if Act does not make any specific provision to contemplate that family antecedent might be a bar for carrying out business of arms and ammunitions but implied provision does not rule out consideration of such cause in case of necessity. As per objects and reasons of the Arms Act, 1959 the same was introduced to disarm the nation. Further anxiety compelled the legislature to make several amendments upto this date regarding terrorist and anti national activities and various other activities specifically mentioned in the objects and reasons. Therefore, the family antecedent, if any, can not be made to be restricted only for the purpose of grant of licence for personal use but not for carrying out business etc. Therefore, second stand of the appellant also does not sustain. Factually, six criminal cases are pending against her husband, however, according to wife, her husband is acquitted in half of the cases,
4. Hence, according to us, balance of convenience will be subserved if the appeal is disposed of in the following manner:
(a) No interference is required with the order of the learned Single Judge;
(b) No mandatory order could be passed in such type of cases as a matter of course;
(c) The appellant, at best, can raise her grievance before the authority by making any application provided her husband is acquitted from all the criminal charges;
(d) Even then her application could not be construed as formal one but subject to enquiry and consideration of the cause by the authority concerned;
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
No order is passed as to costs.
Shishir Kumar, J.
5. I agree.