MP High Court Quashes Arms Licence Cancellation, Directs Bhopal DM To Re-Examine Category Conversion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a Bhopal District Magistrate’s order cancelling a sports-category arms licence, holding that it was passed in “complete ignorance” of an earlier order by the same authority that had converted the licence into a self-defence one.

At the same time, it asked the District Magistrate to re-examine whether a licence can be converted from one category to another at all.

Justice Maninder S. Bhatti passed the order on October 6 while disposing of a writ petition filed by Mohd Saood under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of Madhya Pradesh and others.

The petitioner held Arms Licence No. 33/Shahjahanabad/Bhopal/2012, issued in the sports category in Form III of Schedule III appended to the Arms Rules, 2016. During its currency, he was served a show-cause notice asking why, after using the cartridges, the empty cartridges had not been produced before the competent authority for updating the records.

In reply, the petitioner told the authority that, apart from the sports quota, he needed the licence for self-defence as well, since he was participating in politics and was a Councillor in one of the constituencies of Bhopal. A three-member committee inquired into the matter and recommended that the licence be converted from the sports category to the self-defence category. Acting on this, the District Magistrate passed an order on March 18, 2026, permitting the conversion.

Later, the same committee submitted another report, stating that the petitioner was an “inactive shooter” who had not participated in any national or international sporting events. It proposed cancellation of the licence, and the District Magistrate cancelled it by an order dated April 2, 2026.

Advocate Vishal Vincent Rajendra Daniel, for the petitioner, argued that the cancellation order was passed in complete ignorance of the earlier order of March 18, which was still holding the field. He contended that the authorities had proceeded simultaneously, taking recourse to “complete oblivion” of the previous inquiry report and order.

Opposing the plea, Government Advocate Mukund Agrawal, for the State, submitted that the petitioner was an inactive sportsperson who was not using the arms or the cartridges, and that the District Magistrate had therefore rightly cancelled the licence on the basis of the later report.

The Court noted that the conversion order “has not been set aside by any higher authority, nor recalled by the authority which passed the same.” It also found that neither the committee’s second report nor the cancellation order even referred to the earlier ones.

Holding the cancellation order “not sustainable”, the Court accordingly quashed it.

However, the Court observed that the validity of the conversion should be examined by the issuing authority, because “prima facie, neither the Arms Act nor the Rules contain any provision for conversion of the nature of licence, and Section 17 of the Arms Act only permits variation of conditions of a licence.”

Without interfering with the March 18 order, the Court directed the District Magistrate, Bhopal, to decide the validity of the conversion within 60 days from the date of the petitioner’s appearance, by passing “a well-reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.” The petitioner has been directed to appear before the District Magistrate on October 26, 2026.

The Court also clarified that the District Magistrate would be at liberty to issue a licence under the relevant category if the petitioner demonstrates his eligibility and establishes the need for it in accordance with law. The decision must be taken without being influenced by the quashed order of April 2.

Until such an order is passed, the March 18 order will remain in force, subject to the District Magistrate’s final decision.

Case Title: Mohd Saood vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: October 6, 2026

Bench: Justice Maninder S. Bhatti