VINEET KUMAR AGNIHOTRI Vs. COMMISSIONER KANPUR REGION KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Kamlesh Shukla, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner applied for a grant of a fire arm's licence. It transpires that the Officer-in-charge of Kotwali, Farrukhabad submitted a report recommending a grant of a fire arm's licence in favour of the petitioner. THE Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh also gave a favourable report. THE A.D.M., Farrukhabad in its report also recommended a grant of licence. Subsequently, the Officer-in-charge Kotwali, Farrukhabad submitted a fresh report alleging that the petitioner was involved in two criminal cases, namely, one under Section 498-A IPC, and the other one under Section 304-B IPC, and therefore, recommended that no licence should be granted. Based on this fresh report, the Prescribed Authority refused to grant a licence in favour of the petitioner on the ground that since two criminal cases were pending, it would not be in public interest to grant a licence. THE petitioner preferred an appeal which was also rejected by the appellate authority. THE petitioner has now filed the present writ petition.

(3.) REGISTRATION of a criminal case under Section 304-B IPC could be a ground to reject an application for grant of a licence by the Licensing Authority in public interest, but registration of a case on a complaint of the wife of the petitioner is personal dispute inter se between the two parties, in which public interest is not involved. Consequently, the ground for rejection of the petitioner's application for grant of an arm's licence on the ground that it was not in public interest to grant such a licence, in my opinion, is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained.