Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 768 (ALL)

PRAMOD KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-03-08

B.K.NARAYANA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.K. Narayana, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 15.9.2008 and 24.4.2007 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Annexure Nos. 6 & 3 to the writ petition) respectively. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for grant of licence under the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘act’) before the respondent No. 3 on 2.8.2004. The said application was rejected by the respondent No. 3 by his order dated 24.7.2007 on the ground that his father is a convict and that the petitioner had failed to indicate in his application, the name of the person with whom he had enmity and from whom he apprehended threat to his life and that there was no special requirement on the part of the petitioner to possess firearm licence. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the respondent No. 3, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Act before respondent No. 2 which was numbered as Appeal No. 117/2007 and dismissed by him by order dated 15.9.2008. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds on which the licensing authority can refuse to grant licence have been laid down in Section 14 of the Arms Act and the licensing authority refusing the licence is bound to give reasons which in view of Section 14 of the Arms Act could only be any one or more of those enumerated in that Section and since respondent No. 2 has refused to grant firearm licence to the petitioner on grounds which are not enumerated in Section 14 of the Act, the order rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of licence is not sustainable at all. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan v. State, AIR 1982 All 283 . 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the failure of the appellate authority to redeem the illegality committed by the licensing authority, respondent No. 3 has vitiated the order of the appellate authority also. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the failure of the appellate authority to redeem the illegality committed by the licensing authority, respondent No. 3 has vitiated the order of the appellate authority also. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondent No. 3 has given cogent reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of firearm licence and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the respondent No. 3 before respondent No. 2 has also been rightly dismissed. He further submitted that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Section 14 of the Arms Act which enumerates the grounds on which the licensing authority can refuse the grant of licence reads as under : “(1) Notwithstanding anything in Section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant— (a) a licence under Section 3, Section 4 or Section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition; (b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,— (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe— (1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or (2) to be of unsound mind, or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. (2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. (2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement.” This Court in the case of Ram Khelawan Misra (supra) considered the grounds on which the licensing authority could refuse the licence under the Arms Act and held as under: “A rifle not being a smooth bore gun when a person seeks a licence for the former the licensing authority has to be satisfied that he has a good reason to obtain it. Section 14 lays down grounds for refusal of the licence. The licensing authority refusing the licence is bound to give reasons, which in view of Section 14, could only be any one or more of those enumerated in that Section. Refusal on a ground not found in that provision would be illegal.” 8. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 shows that the grounds on which he refused to grant licence to the petitioner inter alia are that his father is a convict that he had failed to disclose the identity of his enemies and that there was no special requirement of petitioner to possess a firearm licence and that his need was not genuine. The reasons given in the impugned order for refusing the licence to the petitioner are not covered by any of the grounds given in Section 14 of the Act on which the licence may be refused. In my opinion the respondent No. 2 failed to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for grant of firearm licence keeping in view the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and rejected the petitioner’s application arbitrarily which has rendered his order totally unsustainable. 9. The appellate authority respondent No. 2 also fell into the same error in rejecting the petitioner’s appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 15.9.2008 and 24.4.2007 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Annexure Nos. 9. The appellate authority respondent No. 2 also fell into the same error in rejecting the petitioner’s appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 15.9.2008 and 24.4.2007 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Annexure Nos. 6 & 3 to the writ petition) respectively are hereby quashed. 10. Respondent No. 3 is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application for grant of firearm licence strictly in accordance with law keeping in view the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order before him. ————