BRIJ NANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court for the third time in a simple matter for a decision on his application for firearm licence under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as Act). THE application was filed before the District Magistrate, Deoria - respondent no.2 on 13.8.2008. It remained pending for almost two years whereafter the petitioner came to this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.46002 of 2010 raising his grievance of inaction on the part of District Magistrate in deciding his application. THE writ petition was disposed of on 5.8.2010 directing the licencing authority (respondent no.2) to consider petitioner's grievance and take decision on his application within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before him. Consequently, by order dated 25/27.1.2011 District Magistrate, Deoria rejected his application on the ground that though Police has not raised any objection for grant of licence to petitioner, but in the application petitioner has not given any special reason or circumstances justifying grant of firearm licence to him and, therefore, there is no justification for granting licence to the petitioner. THE ground mentioned in the order dated 25/27.1.2011 by District Magistrate, Deoria may be reproduced as under: - ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...

(2.) AGGRIEVED thereto the petitioner preferred appeal under Section-18 before Commissioner, Gorakhpur vide memo of appeal dated 10.2.2011. The appeal was rejected vide order dated 12th May, 2011. Both these orders dated 25/27.1.2011 and 12.5.2011 were assailed in the writ petition no.45472 of 2011. The writ petition was allowed. Both these orders were quashed and District Magistrate was directed to pass fresh order in the light of observation made in the judgment dated 11.8.2011 and also in accordance with law. The District Magistrate was required to pass fresh order within one month from the date of production of certified copy of that order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the reason, which this court did not find just and legal to uphold the order of rejection of fire arm licence application, has been reiterated by the District Magistrate with impunity ignoring the judgment of this Court and making observation therein to the extent of upholding order of his successor, which has already been set aside by this Court. This shows as if he has sat over the High Court's order, which ex-facie amounts to criminal contempt, as defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'Act of 1971'). Besides, vitiating the order, since the District Magistrate lacked such authority and jurisdiction, the impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.