Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 972 (ALL)

SURESH CHANDRA KATHURIA v. STATE OF U P

2009-03-31

P.C.VERMA, S.K.GUPTA

body2009
P. C. VERMA AND S. K. GUPTA, JJ. By means of this writ petition petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: - (i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 6. 9. 2007. (ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to reconsider the request of the petitioner for grant of fire arms licence to the petitioner under Form XII on the basis of the recommendation of District Magistrate dated 21. 6. 2007. 2. Perusal of impugned order dated 6. 9. 2007 shows that for the purpose of grant of licence as required under section 5 of the Arms Act the State Government after considering the recommendation of the Collector was of the opinion that the exist ing arms dealers in the district are suffi cient to meet the requirement of licensees and there is no need to grant further li cence. It has further been opined in the im pugned order that if the fresh licence is granted, there may be a likelihood of abuse of the licence which may result in distur bance of public peace and safety. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenged this finding on the ground that this finding has been recorded without there being any material and pointed out from the report of the District Magistrate, Meerut that the District Magistrate has recommended the case of the pe titioner for grant of arms licence but the report of the District Magistrate and of the other departments have altogether been ignored. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contends that the reasons re corded in the impugned order for refusal of grant of licence are in conformity with the provisions of sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act. Therefore, no interference is called for. 5. Before dealing with the rival con tention of the petitioner and the respon dents we proceed to consider the nature of right claimed by the petitioner. Petitioner applied for grant of Arms dealership li cence. Therefore, no interference is called for. 5. Before dealing with the rival con tention of the petitioner and the respon dents we proceed to consider the nature of right claimed by the petitioner. Petitioner applied for grant of Arms dealership li cence. Section 5 of the Act totally prohibits any person to sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove or expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale any firearms or any other arms of class or description as may he prescribed or any ammunition unless he hold in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the pro visions of the Arms Act. Thus the petitioner has no absolute right to obtain the licence which could be claimed as a matter of right. Grant of licence is regulated by sec tion 13 and refusal to same is regulated by section 14 of the Arms Act. 6. Section 13 of the Act provides for grant of licences. Sub-section (3) (b) of sec tion 13 also provides that the licensing authority shall grant a licence under section 3 in any other cases or a licence under sec tion 4, section 5, section 6, section 10 or section 12, if the licensing authority is sat isfied that the person by whom the licence is required has a good reason for obtaining the same. 7. Section 14 of the Act also provides for refusal of licences and one important ground provided under Clause (1) (b) (ii) of section 14 is that where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the a public peace or for public safety, it may refuse to grant such licence. 8. Joint reading of above quoted provisions clearly manifest that; firstly, the persons requiring licence has good reasons for obtaining the licence; secondly, refuse to grant licence, licensing authority has to satisfy that it is necessary for the security of the public peace or for the public safety. Satisfaction of licensing authority is subjective in nature as is clearly evident from the conjoint reading of aforesaid two provi sions quoted in bold letters. Decision is to be taken on the assessment of overall situation of the district i. e. to say the law and order situation, crime rate in the district, disturbance of public peace and threat perception to the public safety. Decision is to be taken on the assessment of overall situation of the district i. e. to say the law and order situation, crime rate in the district, disturbance of public peace and threat perception to the public safety. All these factors have been well considered and in dicated in the reason given in the impugned order that there is likelihood of abuse of licence for illegal sell, transfer, convert, repair, etc. which may disturb the public peace or public safety. Thus, the or der impugned has been passed in con formity with the provisions of Arms Act relating to grant and refuse of the Arm li cence. 9. We are satisfied with the reasons recorded by the State Government are co gent, convincing and satisfactory and are in accordance with the provisions of sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act. We do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. 10. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed. .