RAJENDRA PANDIT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 13th October, 2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for grant of fire-arm licence was rejected. It is stated that the petitioner had filed the application under Section 13 of the Act for grant of fire-arm licence for NBB Revolver/Pistol before the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar on 28th July, 2003 but as no orders were passed by the District Magistrate on the said application, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2701 of 2004 which was disposed of on 28th January, 2004 with a direction to the District Magistrate to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner expeditiously but not later than six weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. The order was served by the petitioner upon the District Magistrate but as the no order was passed, the petitioner filed Contempt Application No. 2178 of 2004 with Santosh Kumar Yadav, District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar as an opposite party. The Court by the order dated 8th November, 2004 issued notice to the opposite party but granted one more opportunity to the District Magistrate to ensure compliance of the order. The District Magistrate then, in the counter-affidavit to the Contempt Application, brought on record the order dated 17th March, 2004 by which the application filed by the petitioner for grant of fire-arm licence had been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner, however, asserts that the said order dated 17th March, 2004 was passed on a back date because the District Magistrate had sent a communication dated 30th October, 2004 requiring the Station House Officer to submit a report on the application filed by the petitioner for grant of fire-arm licence.

(3.) The District Magistrate, on remand, however, again rejected the application filed by the petitioner by the order dated 1st June, 2006 observing that though the petitioner may have been acquitted in the criminal cases but the acquittal was for the reason that either the witnesses had turned hostile or benefit of doubt had been given to the petitioner. The District Magistrate also observed that that the petitioner had a dispute with Niwas Sharma regarding land in the village and for maintenance of public peace and safety it was necessary in the public interest not to grant licence to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner but this appeal was also dismissed by the order dated 4th October, 2006.