KALIKA PRASAD MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 22.02.2003 passed by the opposite party No.3 rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of licence for DBBL gun and the order dated 30.08.2005 passed by the opposite party No.2 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the opposite party No.3 has been dismissed. The petitioner claims that he had applied for firearm licence (DBBL gun) in March, 1999 before the opposite party No.3, which was rejected by the opposite party No.3 by his order dated 22.02.2003 on the basis of the recital contained in the police report dated 20.02.2003 which was to the effect that the petitioner is engaged in Gutbandi and there was apprehension of misuse of firearm by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, against the order dated 22.02.2003, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the opposite party No.2 which was registered as Appeal No.453 of 2002-03 and dismissed by his order dated 30.08.2005. The opposite party No.2 while rejecting the petitioner's appeal had left it open to the petitioner to apply afresh for grant of firearm licence before the competent authority. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party No.3 refused to grant the firearm licence to the petitioner in an arbitrary manner and for considerations extraneous to the requirement of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the licensing authority instead of considering the individual requirement of the petitioner for grant of licence considered the fact which was extraneous to law. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that Section 13 of the Act provides that the licensing authority after such enquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, and after considering the report received under Sub-section (2), shall, subject to other provisions of this Chapter, by order in writing, either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same. The grounds of refusal are enumerated under Section 14 of the Act and the same are that the person seeking licence is prohibited by the Act or by any other law from acquiring the firearm or the person is of unsound mind or is a person unfit for licence under the Act and the last where the licensing authority considers it necessary to refuse the licence for the security of the public peace and public safety. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that in the present case, no such grounds of refusal exist as even the police report submitted under Section-13 (2) of the Act is in favour of the petitioner. The refusal is only on the ground that there was apprehension of misuse of firearm by the petitioner as he was indulging in Gutbandi, which is not covered by Section 14 of the Act. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties has advanced his arguments in support of the impugned orders and has submitted that the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity warranting any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have carefully examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. A perusal of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Kheri as well as the order passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow shows that the refusal of firearm licence to the petitioner is for reasons extraneous to law. The licence to the petitioner could not have been refused on the ground that there was apprehension of misuse of firearm by the petitioner as he was indulging in Gutbandi. The entitlement of the petitioner to acquire a firearm licence has to be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arms Act and the rules framed thereunder. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 22.02.2003 passed by the opposite party No.3 and the order dated 30.08.2005 passed by the opposite party No.2 (Annexures No.2 and 4 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The opposite party No.3 is directed to consider and decide the petitioner's application for grant of firearm licence on merits, in the light of the observation made hereinabove and also in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Act and the rules framed thereunder as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.