SAHIL KOHLI Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court, who is a Doctor by profession, applied for grant of a fire arm licence for his personal safety. The said application was rejected vide order 26.12.2012, of the Licensing Authority without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Being aggrieved from the rejection of his application, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. After hearing the petitioner through his counsel, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was no specific threat to the petitioner's life or property, which would justify the grant of an arms license to him. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before the Lieutenant Governor that sometimes the petitioner has to visit patients very late in the night and, therefore, he had applied for an arms licence for self-protection. This contention, however, did not find favour with the Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved from rejection of his appeal, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition.

(2.) A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in WP (C) No.1631/2012 titled Vinod Kumar Vs. The State & Ors. decided on 9.9.2013. The application of the petitioner in that case, for grant of an Arms Licence was rejected on an identical ground, i.e., he did not have any specific threat. Allowing the writ petition, this Court inter alia held as under:

(3.) ON a cumulative and harmonious construction of Section 13 and 14 of the Act, it becomes obvious that, except in the cases covered by Section 13(3)(a), which do not fall under Section 14(1), though the Licensing Authority has a discretion whether to grant licence or not, such a discretion is not absolute nor can it be exercised on subjective considerations. It has to be a decision guided by reasons which are cogent, objective, transparent and logical. The licence can neither be granted nor refused on the whims and fences of the Licensing Authority and the decision taken by him must necessarily be based on good reasons which are discernible from the order passed by him. The need to become objective, fair and reasonable becomes greater in case the Licensing Authority seeks to refuse the licence since sub-section (3) of Section 14 mandates him to record reasons for such refusal and supply a brief statement of such reasons to the applicant who has a right to challenge the decision of the Licensing Authority, before the prescribed Appellate Authority. An order refusing to grant licence is subject to judicial review if challenged on the ground that it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, non-application of mind, mala fides or application of irrelevant considerations.