RAJESH KUMAR LALAN GOSWAMI  Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. -Judgment by Delhi High Court

$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Decision delivered on: 12.01.2024
+ W.P.(C) 749/2020

RAJESH KUMAR LALAN GOSWAMI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr Chinmoy Pradeep Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr Kumar Ankur, Mr Bipul Kedia, Mr Abhishek Yadav, Ms Krishna Jyoti Deka and Mr Irfan Hasieb, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr Kaushal Jeet Kait, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
Ms Sonu Bhatnagar, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms Monica Benjamin and Ms Nishtha Mittal, Advs. for R-3.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
1. The petitioner claims to be the importer of guns, which are used for TV shows, films, and theatrical performances.
2. It is the petitioner�s case that since the guns imported do not release a projectile, they do not fall within the purview of the definition of �firearms� as provided under Section 2(e) of the Arms Act, 1959 [in short, �1959 Act�].
2.1 Based on this line of argument, it is also argued by Mr Chinmoy Pradeep Sharma, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, that there is, in fact, no requirement for the petitioner to obtain a license for the acquisition of guns in issue, as the provision made in that behalf in the 1959 Act, which is embedded in Section 3, concerns only a firearm.
3. Mr Sharma also claims that, although the license for arms and ammunition used for theatrical performances, films, and television productions is required to be obtained under Rule 42 of the Arms Rules, 2016 [in short, �2016 Rules�], an exemption notification dated 18.07.2016 has been issued for �firearm replicas�.
3.1 In sum, it is the petitioner�s case that the guns imported by him stand on the same footing as firearm replicas since they do not, as indicated above, release a projectile.
4. It is stated that what is fired are blank cartridges which emit sound but not a projectile.
5. Given this position, we have put to Mr Sharma as to whether the petitioner would like to make a representation to respondent no.2, i.e., UOI through the Ministry of Home Affairs so that the forensic report placed before us and the other materials can be examined by the concerned authority in the first instance.
6. Mr Sharma, on instructions, says that the petitioner will make a representation to respondent no.2/UOI and that the court may direct disposal of the representation within a stipulated timeframe.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner will make a comprehensive representation, which will be accompanied by the relevant material for consideration of respondent no.2/UOI.
7.1 Once such a representation is made, the same will be considered and disposed of via a speaking order within eight (08) weeks.
8. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
9. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

AMIT BANSAL, J
JANUARY 12, 2024
aj

W.P.(C) 749/2020 Page 1 of 3