Home Maxims & Terms Arms licences meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Arms licences

Arms licences legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2021 YLR 1150 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Ss.3, 6 & 14Sindh Arms Rules, 2018, R. 3.8Arms licenceRenewal

Petitioners were licence holders of prohibited bore arms and were aggrieved of notification issued by Federal Government suspending such licences

Validity

Notification whereby suspension of prohibited bore category of arms was communicated had withdrawn/lifted vide subsequent notification dated 13.12.2018, and the matter was resolved in view of S.6 of Sindh Arms Act, 2013

If licences of petitioner had expired then they had to take recourse for their renewal

Applications would be renewed by National Database and Registration Authority and processed in accordance with law after prescribed scrutiny was to be undertaken by Home Department in such regard

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2012 PLD 505 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Ss. 3(1)(d), 9 & 11Arms Rules, 1924, Rr.33, 41-A, 42(3)(6), Forms XVI and XVI-AConstitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petition-Arms licencesWords "in the manner" in S.9, West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965ImplicationIssuance and cancellationNational Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), authority of

Grievance of petitioners was that Federal Government could not cancel arms licences already issued to them under West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, and NADRA had no authority to issue computerized licences

Validity

Arms licences, under Rule 42(3)(b) of Arms Rules, 1924, including licences issued under Forms XVI and XVI-A were renewed at Post Offices, where those had been registered under Rule 41-A of Arms Rules, 1924, and both the Rules were still in force and had not been amended

Computerized card licence did not have any such provision for registration with and/or renewal by Post Office, therefore, such aspect was contrary to Arms Rules, 1924 and Forms prescribed by the Rules made under West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, which was still in force

Without amending Rule 41-A of Arms Rules, 1924, arms licence could not be registered and or renewed by any other authority or agency except by Post Office where the licence was registered

Words "in the manner" mentioned in S.9 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, implied that licences for having possession or control of any arms or any ammunition or military stores must be in the Forms prescribed by the Rules because, except for Forms prescribed by the Rules, there was no other "manner" given or prescribed under the Rules, the same was contrary to the "manner" prescribed by the Rules and was violative of S.9 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965

Federal Government or any Provincial Government as defined in S.3(1)(d) of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, could not issue arms licences in violation of any of the provisions contained in West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, or in Arms Rules, 1924

Scheme of Federal Government and actions of issuance of computerized card licence was contrary to Rules and S.9 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965

High Court declared the scheme of Federal Government as without lawful authority, jurisdiction and of no legal effect

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Arms licences", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124938890

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Arms licences"

PLD 2012
2012-July-25

P L D 2012 Sindh 505

MUHAMMAD AYUB through Lawful Attorney and 37 others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another — Respondents

Court: High Court
CLC 1995
Writ Petition No. 6105 of 1992, decided on 5th December, 1993.

1995 CLC 672

LIAQAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court:
PLD 1985
Writ Petition No. 832 of 1968, heard on 26th March, 1984.

P L D 1985 Lahore 62

DELAY KHAN AND 6 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents

Court: -- S. 12-Arms Rules, 1924, rr. 43(1) (a), (aa) & 33(l)-Notification, dated 27-4-1962 (issued under r. 33(1), Arms Rules, 1924)Cancellation of arm licences-Contention that Sub-Divisional Magistrate having been empowered under notification and. r. 43(I) (aa) of Arms Rules, 1924, to issue an arm licence was also competent to cancel same-Provisions of r. 43(1)-(aa) in order to be effective, must remain consistent with West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 dnd could not be interpreted to re9der provision of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, nugatory-Every authority who has been empowered to grant or renew a licence could also cancel or suspend same Licence granted by District Magistrate could not be cancelled by Sub-Divisional Magistrate - Order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate cancelling arm licence, held, without lawful authority and of no legal effect-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98.-Interpretation of statutes.
PLD 1980
Constitutional Petitions Nos. D‑446 and D‑447 of 1.979, decided on 24th September, 1979.

1980K80

Before Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim and B. G. N. Kazi, JJ Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,

Court: Martial Law Order, 1977 M. L. A. Zone 'C' ‑‑ No. 64, para. 2‑‑Cancellation of fire‑arm licences‑Impugned order cancelling fire‑arm licences of petitioners made without any notice and in a routine manner‑Finding of licence‑holder being an undesirable person and not fit to hold fire‑arm licence, held, could not be recorded without serving a show‑cause notice and/or granting hearing‑Cancella tion of licence under M. L. O. 64 carries with it a stigma of licence holder being an undesirable person‑Impugned order declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.‑Natural justice, principle of.
YLRN 2017
Crl. Misc. Nos.16161/B and 16553/B of 2016, decided on 21st February, 2017.

2017 Y L R Note 304

SOHAIL BABAR — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents

Court: Lahore
SCMR 2003
Civil Petition No.3435-L of 2001, decided on 15th April, 2002.

2003 S C M R 1095

GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE and 2 others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLC(CS) 1996
Appeal No. 147(R) of 1995, decided on 18th June, 1995.

1996 P L C (C

MUHAMMAD ZORAB Versus POSTMASTER-GENERAL, AJK & F.C., ISLAMABAD and 2 others

Court: Federal Service Tribunal
PLC(CS) 2003
Civil Petition No.3435‑‑L of 2001, decided on 15th April, 2002.

2003 P L C (C

GHULAM RASOOL Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE and 2 others

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 1991
14, 25, 32, 43 to 55, 60, 70 to 76, 78, 81, 86 and 87 of 1991, decided on 26th March, 1991.

P L D 1991 Quetta 57

Haji Mir GHULAM MUSTAFA and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, INTERIOR DIVISION, ISLAMABAD trough its Secretary and 3 others‑‑Respondents

Court:
PLD 1981
Constitutional Petition No. 1005 of 1978, decided on 5th November, 1980.

P L D 1981 Karachi 311

JUMMA KHAN‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents

Court: Maxim : "Audi alteram portein'‑Provision of notice and opportunity of hearing before passing any order adversely' affecting rights of a citizen‑Held : Considered to be a part of every statute unless statute itself expressly excludes such notice or opportunity of hearing Maxim.