PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State.

(2.) It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had applied for grant of licence under the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Respondent No. 3 on 2.8.2004. The said application was rejected by the Respondent No. 3 by his order dated 24.7.2007 on the ground that his father is a convict and that the Petitioner had failed to indicate in his application, the name of the person with whom he had enmity and from whom he apprehended threat to his life and that there was no special requirement on the part of the Petitioner to possess firearm licence. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the Respondent No. 3, the Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Act before Respondent No. 2 which was numbered as Appeal No. 117/2007 and dismissed by him by order dated 15.9.2008.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the grounds on which the licensing authority can refuse to grant licence have been laid down in Section 14 of the Arms Act and the licensing authority refusing the licence is bound to give reasons which in view of Section 14 of the Arms Act could only be any one or more of those enumerated in that section and since Respondent No. 2 has refused to grant firearm licence to the Petitioner on grounds which are not enumerated in Section 14 of the Act, the order rejecting the Petitioner's application for grant of licence is not sustainable at all. In support of his submissions the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan v. State, 1982 AIR(All) 283. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the failure of the appellate authority to redeem the illegality committed by the licensing authority, Respondent No. 3 has vitiated the order of the appellate authority also.