The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has delivered a significant ruling that reinforces procedural safeguards under the Arms Act. The Court clarified that a licensing authority cannot deny the renewal of an arms license without first procuring a police verification report and conducting the necessary enquiry—even if the applicant has multiple FIRs filed against him.
“It is the duty of the licensing authority to get the report from the concerned Police and not the applicant,” — Justice Sanjay Dhar
This ruling came in response to a plea by Kuldeep Sharma, whose arms license had been valid since 1996 and was regularly renewed until its expiry in December 2019. Despite submitting a renewal application, including a character certificate from the local Sarpanch, the licensing authority—Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur—kept the application pending and cited multiple FIRs, including one under the Arms Act, to justify non-renewal.
However, the High Court found that the licensing authority failed to comply with mandatory procedures under Sections 13, 14, and 15 of the Arms Act. The Court emphasized that:
Read also: Justice Arun Palli Sworn In As Chief Justice Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
“The licensing authority must adopt the same procedure for renewal as is required for granting a new license. This includes seeking a police report and making a formal enquiry,” — Justice Sanjay Dhar
The Court rejected the claim that it was the petitioner’s fault for not providing a police-issued character certificate. It reiterated that the responsibility to obtain police verification lies with the licensing authority, not the applicant.
Read also: Justice Arun Palli Appointed As Chief Justice Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
- Section 13: Licensing authority must call for a police report and conduct an enquiry before granting or renewing a license.
- Section 14: Specifies when an authority may refuse a license.
- Section 15(3): Licenses must be renewed using the same criteria as when they were first granted. Denial must include written reasons.
The Court noted that the licensing authority had neither obtained a police report nor provided written reasons for the delay or denial, which was legally unacceptable.
“The application cannot be kept pending indefinitely without following due process,” — Justice Sanjay Dhar
The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to process and decide Kuldeep Sharma’s application in accordance with Chapter III of the Arms Act and the relevant rules. The authorities have been instructed to do so preferably within two months from the date they receive a certified copy of the order.
APPEARANCE Jagpaul Singh, Advocate for Petitioner
Nazia Fazal, Advocate vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for Respondents
Case-Title:- Kuldeep Sharma vs UT if J&K &Ors. 2025
