MOHD DANISH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Time granted to file counter affidavit has expired long before still no counter affidavit has been filed.

(3.) Father of the petitioner was holding arm licence to keep a SBBL gun who died on 29.02.2004 and thereupon the petitioner deposited the gun with an arms dealer. Thereafter petitioner applied for grant for licence to him. The application was registered as Case No.73 of 2004. D.M. Fatehpur through order dated 18.01.2006 rejected the application. It is specifically mentioned in the order that the other legal representatives of deceased licence holder had given affidavit in favour of the petitioner and according to the report of the S.P. petitioner had no criminal history and grant of licence was recommended. A.D.M. also reported that there was no objection for grant of licence. Still the D.M. rejected the application for grant of licence on the ground that according to the policy of the government arm licence shall not be given to the persons who do not, necessarily actually require the arm licence. There is absolutely no reference to the details of the said policy. Neither the date nor the number of the communication/ order has been mentioned. It has not been explained what is meant by actual need. Does it mean that the person applying for arm licence must have got several enemies, must have been attacked and received severe injuries etc. ? If the matter had not been quite old, the Court would have required the D.M. concerned to file the copies of the orders which he might have passed while granting licences to allegedly needy persons to discern the meaning of need. Against the order dated 18.01.2006 petitioner filed Appeal No.16 of 2005-06. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad through order dated 27.02.2006 dismissed the appeal referring to the judgment of the High Court in Jagpal Vs. State,1977 ACC 499 holding that D.M. is the best judge to decide whether to grant the licence or not. Even Supreme Court and High Court judges while deciding the matters are duty bound to give valid reasons. To be the best judge does not mean that the authority concerned has got the right to decide the case by toss of coin. In Writ Petition No.21605 of 2006, Abdul Rahman Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 04.09.2012 I held as follows in the last two paragraphs: