Setting aside the indefinite suspension of a retired Army man’s gun licence, on which his job as a security guard depended, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a licensing authority must record its own reasoned satisfaction under the Arms Act and cannot act merely because a criminal case has been registered.
Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an order of December 19, 2024 that suspended a retired Army personnel’s arms licence for an indefinite period on the ground of a pending criminal case, holding that the licensing authority acted without application of mind and without recording the satisfaction required under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 [Ghanshyam Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others].
Justice Gajendra Singh allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the licensing authority for fresh consideration within eight weeks, after hearing the petitioner.
Background of the case
On November 2, 2024, two cross-FIRs were registered following a dispute between private parties, one at the instance of the petitioner’s brother under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 including Section 109(1), and the other against the petitioner and others under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) and 117(2) of the BNS.
The petitioner, a retired Army personnel, works as a security guard with the Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited, a post that requires a valid arms licence and a licensed firearm. He is the sole earning member of his family. On November 8, 2024, he voluntarily deposited his licensed firearm at Police Station Narsinghgarh to avoid any controversy during the dispute, and was issued a deposit receipt. By the impugned order passed in Case No. 11814/Seven-Licence/2024, respondent No. 3 suspended his licence for an indefinite period.
What the parties argued
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no allegation that the licensed firearm had been used or misused in the incident, that it was never seized but deposited voluntarily, and that the authorities had shown no material suggesting that continuation of the licence would endanger public peace or public safety under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act. The suspension, it was argued, had put the petitioner’s livelihood at serious risk. It was further pointed out that by a judgment dated September 10, 2026 in ST No. 1209/2025, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh had acquitted the petitioner and the other co-accused. Reliance was placed on the Gwalior Bench decisions in Jandel Singh Rawat v. State of M.P., Gautam Rai Rally v. State of M.P. and Padam Chand Gupta v. State of M.P.
Counsel for the State opposed the petition but admitted that the petitioner is a retired armed forces personnel and that he had been acquitted by the trial court.
No satisfaction recorded
Examining the impugned order, the Court found that the licence had been suspended only because a criminal case was pending against the petitioner. While noting that an arms licence under the scheme of the Act is a privilege extended by the State, the Court held:
“In the impugned order the licensing authority has not recorded any satisfaction for suspending the licence. Merely due to registration of the case, the licence cannot be suspended.”
The Court concluded that the authority had not exercised its power in accordance with Section 17(3) of the Act, and that the order was without application of mind, arbitrary and passed without recording subjective satisfaction. The suspension order was accordingly set aside.
Directions for fresh consideration
Remitting the matter, the Court directed the licensing authority to give the petitioner an effective hearing and to consider all relevant material, including the status and nature of the criminal cases, whether they have been disposed of, the petitioner’s conduct after the licence was granted, and any material bearing on public peace or public safety. It added:
“The competent authority shall record its independent and reasoned satisfaction in accordance with the requirements of Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, and shall not proceed merely on the basis of registration or pendency of a criminal case or on a bald apprehension of possible misuse of the licensed firearm.”
The exercise is to be completed preferably within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the criminal cases or on the petitioner’s ultimate entitlement to hold the licence, which the authority must decide independently on the material before it.
Case Title: Ghanshyam Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 35168 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:27165
Bench: Justice Gajendra Singh, Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench)
Date of Order: September 24, 2026
Appearance: Prashant Yadav for the petitioner; Hemant Sharma on behalf of the Advocate General for the State