ASHWANI KUMAR DIXIT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. With the consent of parties learned counsel, the writ petition is finally decided at the admission stage without calling for any counter affidavit. The petitioner who is the ex-Army personnel applied for grant of fire arm licence before the opposite party no.3 on 19.05.2007. The said application was rejected by the opposite party no.3 by his order dated 26.02.2009. Aggrieved from the order of the Licensing Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, opposite party no.2, which was registered as Appeal No.407 of 2008-09. According to the petitioner, the Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner's appeal summarily in an arbitrary manner without summoning the record of the Licensing Authority and without examining the grounds on which the petitioner had challenged the validity of the order of the Licensing Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in his application for grant of fire arm licence had categorically stated that his permanent address was of village Chimnamau Majra Chhatauli, district Raebareli whereas the address of the office where the petitioner was working of police station Aliganj, district Lucknow and, hence, the Licensing Authority was not at all justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence only on the ground that petitioner was not a resident of district Raebareli but a resident of district Lucknow. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the petitioner's application could not be rejected on the ground mentioned in the order of the Licensing Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an appeal under Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act is in order to be decided after summoning the record of the Licensing Authority whereas in the present case the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority without summoning the record upon the irrelevant considerations. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the orders passed by the Licensing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties has submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The only ground on which the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence was rejected that he is the resident of district Lucknow and not of district Raebareli although the petitioner in his application had mentioned that his permanent address was of Raebareli and the address of the office in which he was working was of district Lucknow. Thus, the ground on which the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence was rejected is totally unsustainable and misconceived. It is duty of the Appellate Authority to have considered and analysed the grounds on which the petitioner had challenged the validity of the order of the Licensing Authority after summoning the record but the Appellate Authority has illegally dismissed the petitioner's appeal summarily. The order passed by the Appellate Authority, opposite party no.2 is totally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 25.03.2009 passed by the opposite party no.2 is quashed. It is directed that the opposite party no.2 shall consider and decide the petitioner's appeal No.407 of 2008-09 after summoning the record of the Licensing Authority, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.