BHAKTI SHARAN Vs. COMMISSIONER JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who applied for grant of fire -arm licence under the Arms Act was denied by the Licensing Authority/District Magistrate, Banda and the reason assigned is that the petitioner has not been able to produce the documents showing that he is a contractor of P.W.D. The City Magistrate has also submitted in his report that there is no apprehension of life and property of the petitioner. The Licensing Authority has further stated that if appears that the applicant only wants to possess a fire -arm of this status, the district Banda is sensitive area from crime point of view and, therefore, the licence should be granted only when it is necessary. The Licensing Authority has further stated that the petitioner has not been able to prove that he has genuine necessity of holding a fire -arm. Therefore, the Licensing Authority rejected the application of the petitioner.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 3 -8 -1994 passed by the Licensing Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi. The appeal has also been rejected by the appellate authority.

(3.) A perusal of the orders of the Licensing authority and the appellate authority clearly demonstrate that the refusal is not covered by any of the provisions of Section 14 (1) (b) or 14 (2). In this view of the matter, refusal of the fire -arm licence passed by the respondents is wholly arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution and against the Scheme of Arms Act. In this view of the matter, the order dated 3 -2 -1994 passed by the District Magistrate, Banda and the order dated 10 -10 -1995 passed by the appellate authority/Commissioner, Jhansi, deserves to be quashed.