JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 27.3.201 passed by the respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, Banda dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and confirming the order dated 16.3.2013 passed by the respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Banda whereby he refused to grant fire arm licence to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case as put forth in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a permanent resident of village Jakhani, police station Girwan, Tahsil Atarra, District Banda, and is posted as a constable in 12th Battalian P.A.C., Fatehpur. He applied for grant of a fire arms licence for his personal security and safety on the ground that his village is situated in the remote interior area of District Banda; His younger sister Sedrun Nisha, was murdered by her husband (Najir) following which an F.I.R. was lodged and the accused persons were convicted ; now since they have been released on bail, there is imminent danger to his life and property. 3. The application for grant of arms licence was submitted before the licensing authority, who in turn, processed the same and called for the reports from the revenue as well as police authorities. The said application was rejected by the licensing authority i.e. respondent No. 3 vide order 16.3.2013.Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The appeal too was dismissed on the ground that there was no threat perception to the petitioner’s life or property, which would justify the grant of arms licence to him. Hence the present writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the material brought on record. 5. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner is a permanent resident of village Jakhani, police station Girwan, Tahsil Atarra, District Banda, and while he was posted as a constable in 12th Battalian P.A.C., Fatehpur; he applied for grant of a fire arms licence for his personal security and safety on the ground that he has to visit Dacioty affected areas. The said arms application was processed and reports were called for from the concerned police authorities who had recommended grant of licence in a routine manner, without assigning any specific reasons regarding the threat perception to his life. The said arms application was processed and reports were called for from the concerned police authorities who had recommended grant of licence in a routine manner, without assigning any specific reasons regarding the threat perception to his life. Moreover, the Incharge of concerned police outpost Khurhand, P.S. Girawin in its report dated 4.3.2013 stated that neither there was any danger to his life, nor any such complaint was ever made by him to the concerned police station. Therefore, in the circumstances, authorites below were not satisfied with the cause shown by the petitioner. Hence, refused to grant licence. 6. Rule 51 of the Arms Rules 1962 (in short ‘Rules’) provides that every application for the grant of licence shall contain all such information as is necessary for the consideration of the application. Every application for the grant of licence has to be in “Form A” as provided under the Rules. Part ‘C’ of “Form A” requires disclosure of the need for the licence and of claims for special consideration. Column 16 of the application is a part of Part ‘C’. 7. From the perusal of the order passed by the appellate Court, Respondent No. 2, it appears that the petitioner had taken a plea in para 16 of Form ‘A’ while applying for a arms licence that since he has to visit a number of dacoity affected areas, he requires the licence. The application of the petitioner for arms licence was processed and reports were called from the concerned police authorities. A perusal of the record shows that the police authorities in a routine and mechanical manner without applying their minds had recommended for grant of the arms licence in favour of the petitioner and no specific reasons were given for the grant of licence although it was mentioned that he has not been threatened by any one. 8. The petitioner was given a personal hearing by the District Magistrate wherein he stated that his younger sister Sherun Nisha, who was married to one Najir, was murdered by her husband following which an FIR was lodged and the accused persons were convicted. Now since they have been released on bail, there is eminent danger to the life and property of the petitioner. Now since they have been released on bail, there is eminent danger to the life and property of the petitioner. This fact for the first time was disclosed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, such plea, however was not taken by him in his application (Form A) while applying for grant of licence under Rule 51 of the Rules. Thereafter, the District Magistrate again called for the report from the concerned police station to verify the statement of the petitioner as to whether he faces any threat to his life and property from his brother-in-law and other accused who have been released on bail. The Chauki In-Charge of the police outpost Khurhand, Police Station Girva in its report dated 4.3.2014 stated that there is no danger to the life and property of the petitioner and no complaint or FIR has been lodged by him with regard to any incident or threat at the concerned police station. 9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the application for grant of the fire arm licence was rejected by the District Magistrate and said order was confirmed by the appellate Court. 10. It is also notable that the incident with regard to the murder of the sister of the petitioner took place about 15-16 years ago in 1999 but no material was furnished by the petitioner from which it can be inferred that there is a threat perception to his life and property. The petitioner neither made any complaint nor lodged any FIR about it against the accused who have been granted bail by this Court. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner never pleaded this ground in his application (Form A) while applying for arms licence that he apprehends danger to his life from his brother-in-law who is said to have committed murder of his sister. Thus, the plea for grant of arms licence on the basis of threat perception to his life from his brother-in-law is after thought. 11. In Kapildeo Singh v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1987 Patna 122 (FB), it has been held that there is no fundamental right to bear arms and the right to carry arms is a privilege conferred by the Act, and has further held that wide discretion has been given to the licensing authority with regard to grant of fire arm licence. The relevant portion of the observations made in paras 5 and 6 of the said Judgement, are extracted as follows: “5..... It would be manifest from the aforesaid provisions that under the Act there is first a legal bar for having in possession or carrying a firearm unless a valid licence is first secured in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Secondly, even the original grant under Section 13(2A) is vested entirely in the licensing authority and it seems that the widest discretion has been given to it. Even after conforming to the procedural requirements, the licensing authority may, as regards the general category of arms, either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same. This discretion in this context has perhaps been deliberately kept untrammelled. Further, under Section 14 the law mandates a refusal to grant licence even where the licencing authority has reason to believe that the applicant is for any reason unfit for licence under the Act. The larger tilt of the law in this context is thus somewhat too plain to call for further elaboration. 6. .........It has to be kept in mind that the requirements of the original grant or refusal and those of the subsequent suspension or revocation of a licence are not wholly identical. The conditions for suspension and revocation are spelt out under Section 17 and have, indeed to be satisfied. However, there is no gainsaying the fact that as a matter of larger approach the issue of suspension and revocation would take some hue from the provisions of the original grant or refusal of a licence as well. 12. Under Chapter - II of the Arms Act, it has been provided that the licence shall be refused, inter alia, on the ground that the person is unfit for any reason for a licence under the Act. Similarly a licence shall be refused where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or the public safety. 13. Section 14 specifies the grounds where licence shall be refused but even otherwise under Section 13, the licensing authority is duty bound to apply its mind to all the relevant facts and circumstances in determining as to whether the licence should be granted or refused. In those cases, which would fall within the ambit of Section 14, the licensing authority may refuse the licence. In those cases, which would fall within the ambit of Section 14, the licensing authority may refuse the licence. Thus, the Scheme of the Act and the Rules gives wide discretion to the licensing authority while deciding the applications filed for grant of licence. 14. There are catena of decisions of this Court as well of the Apex Court wherein it has been held that right to carry fire arms does not come within the purview of the Article 21 of the Constitution and the persons have no fundamental right to carry the same. A citizen cannot assert his right to hold a fire arm and the Arms Act provides for a procedure for grant of licence for the fire arms. If the licensing authority is satisfied under Section 13 of the Act that the person who has applied for the licence has no good reasons for obtaining the same, the licensing authority may reject the application. Assessment of threat perception by the licensing authority cannot be ordinarily interfered with. There is no concrete instances where the petitioner came under attack in as much as there is no such complaint filled by him or pinpointed as to threat or attempt on his life by any identified person or persons. It would not be possible for High Court to make an assessment of the threat perception to the life of the petitioner. 15. In Kailash Nath v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 All 291 (Full Bench), it has been held as follows: “Para 3 “ In my opinion the obtaining of a licence for acquisition and possession of firearms 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. I may, however, hasten to add that even an order rejecting the application for grant of licence may become legally vulnerable if it is passed arbitrarily or capriciously or without application of mind. No doubt, a citizen may apply for grant of a licence of firearms mostly with the object of protecting his person or property but that is mainly the function of the State. Even remotely this cannot be comprehended within the ambit of Art. 21 of the Constitution which postulates the fundamental right of protection of life and personal liberty.” 16. No doubt, a citizen may apply for grant of a licence of firearms mostly with the object of protecting his person or property but that is mainly the function of the State. Even remotely this cannot be comprehended within the ambit of Art. 21 of the Constitution which postulates the fundamental right of protection of life and personal liberty.” 16. Similar view was taken in another full bench in Balram Singh v. State of U.P., 1990 Cri LJ 409 (FB), the relevant part of the judgment is as follows : “13. In this connection, another aspect of the matter cannot be lost sight of. Obtaining of a licence for possession a firearm has to be held a privilege only. No civil consequences follow. Even if we were to hold that civil consequences do follow as it may in proceedings concerning licences issued under Section 4 or 5 of the Act, the security of public peace or public safety would be of paramount importance and if, to protect and preserve the same it appears “necessary”, the licensing authority has that power to use, for the power to suspend such a licence is inherent in the power to cancel it. Moreover, a right of objection or representation is available to the licence holder.” 17. The same question was considered by another full bench in Rana Pratap Singh, 1995 (I) All CJ 200, wherein it was held that grant of license is a privilege and not right. The relevant part of the judgment is extracted hereunder below : “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.” 18. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has taken a contradictory plea before the Court below. In paragraph 16 of his application (Form A), he has stated that since he has to visit a number of dacoity affected areas, he requires licence. However, when he was afforded opportunity of personal hearing by the licensing authority, he for the first time pleaded that since the husband of his sister, who was convicted for murdering her sister in 1999, has been released on bail by this Court, he apprehends threat from him to his life. The petitioner further failed to disclose any such special circumstances for grant of licence in his application. 19. The petitioner further failed to disclose any such special circumstances for grant of licence in his application. 19. Had there been threat perception following the murder/conviction and release of his brother-in-law on bail, it ought to have been specifically divulged in column 15 & 16 of the application mentioning therein that there is some perception of threat to the security of the petitioner but there is no such disclosure in the said columns. In a case where discretion is conferred on a public authority to grant or hold fire arm licence, the scope of judicial review is limited, unless the authority concerned has taken into account the irrelevant or extraneous considerations or has ignored relevant, valid and germane matters. No specific incident has been cited by the petitioner as to when and where he had faced any danger to his life. The licensing authority did not find any good reasons for grant of license. 20. A perusal of the record would reveal that the licensing authority refused the request of the petitioner to grant licence to him on the ground that there was no threat perception to the life and property of the petitioner as the petitioner had never reported any complaint to the police apprehending danger to his life,limb and property. The impugned order was passed by the the licencing authority after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the report of the Police Incharge dated 4.3.13 and other circumstances of the case. The appellate authority, after considering the material available on the record and hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, rejected the appeal by means of order dated 27.3.14 stating that though the petitioner applied for an arms licence for his personal security and safety, he failed to substantiate the said apprehension. No specific incident was cited by him which may give him reasonable cause to possess arms licence. The licensing authority as well as the appellate authority have meticulously examined each and every aspect of the matter while passing the impugned orders. The record reveals that the petitioner has no reasonable apprehension of danger to his life or property. 21. The authorities below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned orders. Reasons mentioned therein are good enough to satisfy the impugned orders and no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the authorities below. The record reveals that the petitioner has no reasonable apprehension of danger to his life or property. 21. The authorities below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned orders. Reasons mentioned therein are good enough to satisfy the impugned orders and no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the authorities below. The findings recorded by the authorities below are based on material on record and this Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the authorities below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the authorities below is manifestly illegal and perverse. 22. In view of what has been discussed, herein above, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity of any kind in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court. 23. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. —————