KRISHNA CHANDRA DUBEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner's application for grant of an Arm Licence was rejected by the respondent No. 2 by an order dated 11th November, 1992. The petitioner's appeal being Appeal No. 28 of 1993 was also rejected by order dated 3rd May 1994. It is these two orders which have been challenged by means of this writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the reasons given in the impugned orders are no reasons, that unless strong reasons are made out against the grant of licence, the respondents are bound to grant the licence. He next contends that since there was recommendation by the authorities subordinate to the Licensing Authority, the order of rejection of licence being contrary to the said recommendations cannot be sustained and on the basis of such recommendations, the respondents are bound to grant the licence.

(3.) AFTER the conclusion of the argument, the learned counsel submits that if the Court feels like deciding the case against the petitioner, in that event, he may be given time to produce the documents to prove his case by means of filing a supplementary affidavit. The prayer is made at a belated state after the argument is concluded. Hence rejected.