AYODHYA PRASAD Vs. COMMISSIONER LUCKNOW DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. With the consent of the parties' counsel, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at admission stage. The petitioner has applied for grant of arm licence which has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Lucknow by the impugned order dated 26.11.2010. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order was also dismissed by the appellate authority, i.e. the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.

(2.) WHILE assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that while moving application for grant of arm licence in the column relating to special reason, the petitioner had not pointed out with regard to the person from whom he is suffering from threat perception.

(3.) DURING the course of argument, it has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the police as well as the tehsil authorities have submitted a report in the petitioner's favour. In case it is so, then the impugned order suffers from serious perversity. In the event of dissenting view, it was incumbent on the District Magistrate to record reasons or point out the difference of opinion with the report submitted by the police and tehsil authorities. It appears that it has not been done in the present case. Hence, on this ground also, the decision suffers from vice of arbitrariness. In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated 8.6.2011 and 26.11.2010 (Annexures 1 and 2) with consequential benefits. The District Magistrate/Collector, Lucknow is directed to re -consider the petitioner's case for grant of arm licence and if necessary after inviting fresh report from the police authorities. Let necessary exercise be done within a period of four months from the date of service of certified copy of the present order.