Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2306 (ALL)

AVINASH KUMAR GUPTA v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-09-16

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner has made this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction upon the concerned District Magistrate to consider his application for grant of fire-arm licence. 2. The essential facts are that the petitioner has made an application for the license of fire-arm. It is stated that he needs a fire-arm for the protection of his personal security and property. For similar relief a large number of writ petitions are filed in this Court, wherein the petitioners claimed that they have made the application for the license of the fire-arm but the District Magistrate has not taken any decision in spite of the facts that concerned police station has sent its report in favour of the petitioners. 3. The Arms Act, 1959 (in short Act) has been drastically amended by Act No. 25 of 1983, whereby the provisions of the Arms Act have been made more stringent. 4. Section 13 under Chapter-II of the Arms Act read with Rule-51 and 51A of the Arms Rules, 1962 lay down a detail procedure for grant of the licence. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 provides that Licensing Authority shall call for the report of the concerned police station. 5. Sub-section (2A) of Section 13 of the Act is relevant for the purpose which reads as under; “(2A). The licensing authority, after such inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, and after considering the report received under sub-section (2), shall, subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, by order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same.” 6. From perusal of the said provision it is evident that District Magistrate apart from report of the police station, may also enquire about the background and antecedents of the applicant as he may consider necessary. The District Magistrate shall objectively consider the antecedents of the applicant. He shall also have regard to Section 14 of the Act. 7. The Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878) was repealed and the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959) was enacted. One of the objects, which is relevant for the issue in this matter, reads as under; “Objects of the bill are: (a) ......... (b) (i) ........ (ii) that weapons for self-defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege.” 8. One of the objects, which is relevant for the issue in this matter, reads as under; “Objects of the bill are: (a) ......... (b) (i) ........ (ii) that weapons for self-defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not entitle them for the privilege.” 8. The intendment of the legislature is clear that the antecedent of a person has to be enquired by the District Magistrate properly. 9. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Nath v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 All 291 , has held that acquisition of fire-arm is a privilege. Paragraph No. 3 of the judgment reads as under; “Para 3. In my opinion the obtaining of a licence for acquisition and possession of fire-arms and ammunition under the Arms Act is nothing more than a privilege and the grant of such privilege does not involve the adjudication of the right of an individual nor does it entail civil consequences.” 10. A similar view was taken by another Full Bench in the case of Balram Singh v. State of U.P., (FB) 1990 Cri LJ 409. The Court has observed as under: “13. In this connection, another aspect of the matter cannot be lost sight of. Obtaining of a licence for possession a fire-arm has to be held a privilege only. No civil consequences follow.” 11. The same view was again reiterated by the Full Bench in the case of Rana Pratap Singh 1995 (I) All CJ 200, as under; “The consistent trend of judicial decisions has been that the official granting of the licence involves the exercise of discretionary licensing powers which are concerned with privileges and not rights.” 12. This Court in the case of Rajendra Deo Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No. 75427 of 2005, decided on 6.1.2012, has observed that a gun in wrong hand can play havoc with the public peace or public safety. The Court has also taken note of recent debate in USA on gun control. 13. Be that as it may, the licensing authority has to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. 14. It goes without saying that he shall pay regard to the scheme of Act and Rules. The said exercise may be completed expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. 15. 13. Be that as it may, the licensing authority has to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. 14. It goes without saying that he shall pay regard to the scheme of Act and Rules. The said exercise may be completed expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. 16. No order as to costs. ————