CHANDRARAJ TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the relevant moment of time, the petitioner was working as a cashier in a Bank in district Banda. The petitioner applied for an arms licence on 22.03.2005 perceiving threat of his life while discharging functions of a cashier in the Bank. It was stated that he was required to carry cash from one place to another place for more than 25 Kms. and, therefore, for his protection it was necessary to have a weapon. This application was entertained and was processed. The antecedents of the petitioner and the threats, if any, was called by the District Magistrate from the police authority. The relevant police station, after due enquiry, submitted a report recommending grant of a licence to the petitioner. According to the police, the petitioner perceived grave and imminent threat to his life. In spite of this recommendation, the District Magistrate did nothing on the petitioner's application. The petitioner after waiting for four years and being fed up by the inaction of the district administration approached the writ Court by filing writ petition no. 37307 of 2009, which was disposed of by an order dated 28.07.2009 directing the District Magistrate to decide the petitioner's application for grant of an arms licence within two months from the date of production of a certified

(2.) On the basis of this direction, the District Magistrate rejected the petitioner's application by an order dated 04.01.2010 holding that even though the police may have given a report in favour of the petitioner, nonetheless, since no proof of threat was indicated by the petitioner, the application for grant of an arms licence could not be considered and was, accordingly, rejected.

(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal under the Arms Act, which was allowed by an order dated 30.09.2010. The appellate authority considered the police report and finding that the petitioner, being a cashier, was required to transport cash from one Bank to another, had a genuine reason for applying for an arms licence. On this finding, the appellate authority set aside the order of the District Magistrate and directed him to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made thereunder. The order was placed before the District Magistrate immediately thereafter and for the last three years no orders was passed by the District Magistrate and the petitioner's application remained unaddressed. The petitioner again approached the writ Court and filed the present writ petition. This Court entertained the writ petition and issued an interim order dated 02.12.2013, which is extracted hereunder: