NARENDRA BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had, in the year 1996, applied for grant of an arms licence. Earlier his village fell in District Bhadohi and thus the application was moved before the District Magistrate, Bhadohi. However, subsequently the village of the petitioner was merged in District Jaunpur. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur then sought a report from the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, on the basis of which his application was rejected. The appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed on 3 -6 -1999 and the matter was remanded back to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur to reconsider his application. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur again rejected the application of the petitioner on the same grounds. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi on 3 -5 -2000. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 34013 of 2000 which was ultimately allowed on 5 -5 -2003. Considering the fact that the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case filed against him in the year 1986 and several years had passed since then and that his application had been rejected merely on the ground that the petitioner is a person of criminal tendency, this Court directed the District Magistrate, Jaunpur to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order, after taking the acquittal of the petitioner in case crime No. 100 of 1996 into consideration. Pursuant thereto, the application of the petitioner was reconsidered and by order dated 24 -6 -2003, the District Magistrate, Jaunpur has again rejected the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer for quashing the order dated 24 -6 -2003 and directing respondent No. 2 to grant arms licence to the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

(3.) IT is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is involved in any criminal case. It is also not the case of the respondents that after 1986 (which is nearly two decades back) the petitioner was ever involved in any case and in the criminal case registered against him in 1986, the petitioner has already been acquitted, which fact has not even been considered by the District Magistrate although so directed by this Court. Even presuming that a person is short tempered by nature, it would be wrong for the authorities to arrive at a conclusion that merely because of this he would misuse the arms licence, if granted.