In a relief for former Meghalaya Director General of Police (DGP) William Richmond Marbaniang, the Meghalaya High Court has directed the authorities to restore his gun licence.
In a judgement passed today, the High Court bench of Justice Wanlura Diengdoh quashed the order of the District Magistrate of East Khasi Hills which rejected the application filed by Marbaniang for renewal of the arms licence.
Marbaniang had an arms licence for two firearms, a Cogswell and Harrison (0.12 Bore DBBL Gun) and one .22 Bore Rifle, made in Belgium. The licence for the two arms was issued by the deputy commissioner on October 20, 1998.
The licence was supposed to be renewed every three years which was done so till January 1, 2019 valid up to December 31, 2021, after which Marbaniang has then submitted the licence in the office of the District Magistrate, East Khasi Hills for the process of renewal.
However, the district magistrate informed Marbaniang through an order issued on May 19, 2023 that his application for renewal of the arms licence was rejected on the ground that he is said to be involved in Rynjah P.S. Case No 16(03) of 2007 under Section 302 IPC and that the licence will be renewed only when such case is dropped or dismissed by the court.
Marbaniang then filed a representation on June 5, 2023 before the Deputy Commissioner which was not responded to, compelling the former DGP to file another representation on July 20, 2023 which was also not responded to. Later, Marbaniang filed an appeal on September 28, 2023 before the Secretary of the Home Department.
Following the appeal filed by Marbaniang, the district magistrate through a letter issued on October 7, 2023 rejected the plea for renewal of the arms licence and has also directed that such weapons be deposited at the Laitumkhrah Police Station which was done so by Marbaniang.
The former DGP then moved the High Court and challenged the order of the district magistrate.
After hearing the case, Justice Diengdoh observed that there is no indication to conclude that the licensing authority had applied its subjective discretion, “except for a bald statement that the petitioner is involved in the said Rynjah PS Case, nothing is said about how he is involved in the case and as to whether he is the only accused in the said case or that he is one of the co-accused, in case there are more than one accused persons”.
According to Justice Diengdoh, Marbaniang has asserted that he was never involved in the Rynjah PS Case and has admitted that he is involved in another criminal case, the offence being one under Sections 201 (destruction of evidence) and 203 IPC (giving false information), which are comparatively less heinous or are not so grave in nature as a case under Section 302 IPC (murder).
“In fact, when the matter was argued by the parties, this court had made a pointed query to the learned government advocate for the State respondent to furnish the details of the said Rynjah PS Case, but the answer was not forthcoming. Therefore, in the absence of credible evidence in this regard, it may be assumed that the petitioner is not at all involved in the said criminal case aforementioned. Accordingly, inference may be drawn to conclude that the licensing authority had failed to apply its judicious discretion in the passing of the impugned order,” Justice Diengdoh observed.
“On an overall analysis of the facts and circumstances and the law in this regard, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind and hence, is deemed to have been arbitrarily done so to the detriment of the petitioner’s cause,” the judge added.
While setting aside the district magistrate’s order dated May 19, 2023 and the related appellate order dated October 7, 2023, the High Court also directed Marbaniang to file a fresh application for renewal of his firearms licence and that the licensing authority should consider the renewal application in accordance with law and related rules in the light of the observations made by the court.
“Needless to say, if the law of limitation applies to such proceedings, such a period may be considered as condoned,” the court said.
