STATE OF U P Vs. MAHIPAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Special Appeal by the State arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 11 December 2013. While setting aside an order passed by the District Magistrate rejecting the application filed by the respondent for grant of a firearm license, the learned Single Judge did not accept the view of the District Magistrate that there was no perception of threat to the life of the respondent. The Learned Judge held that sufficient reasons had come on the record in regard to the threat perception to the life of the respondent since his brother had been murdered. The Learned Single Judge, accordingly, directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the matter having regard to the observations contained in a judgment dated 11 October 2011 in Writ Petition 58060 of 2011 earlier filed by the respondent and directed the District Magistrate to pay costs to the extent of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent.

(2.) The respondent had submitted an application for the grant of a license for a Double Barrel Breach-Load (DBBL) Gun on 19 June 2007. The application was rejected by the District Magistrate, Banda. The appeal was rejected thereafter by the Commissioner. These orders were called in question by the respondent in Writ Petition 58060 of 2011. By a judgment dated 11 October 2011 the learned Single Judge, while allowing the petition, set aside the orders impugned and remanded the proceedings to the District Magistrate for re-consideration. Following the decision, the District Magistrate, Banda by an order dated 6 January 2012 rejected the application. The respondent thereupon filed an appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner who remanded the proceedings to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate thereafter by an order dated 29 August 2013 rejected the application which led to the filing of Writ Petition 64953 of 2013 by the respondent. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge has been passed on this petition filed by the respondent.

(3.) The Learned Single Judge held that the order was passed by the District Magistrate in a mechanical manner without considering the observations made by the Court in the judgment dated 11 October 2011 delivered in the writ petition earlier filed by the respondent. The relevant observations in the judgment are as follows :-