Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1242 (MP)

Dinesh Pachori v. State of M. P.

2015-12-14

ROHIT ARYA

body2015
ORDER 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 21.9.2011 passed by the State Government rejecting the application for grant of licence for fire arm. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no plausible reasons much less reasons have been assigned for turning down the application. It is contended that there has been recommendations by the CSP and SP of Morena (Annexures P-4 and P-5) and also that of the Collector for grant of licence. The aforesaid reports justified recommendations for the reasons that the petitioner faces threats to life and property, as dacoity was committed in his house and his father and grandfather at some time were kidnapped. As such, there is constant threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner and his family, besides homicidal death of the son of his uncle. Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the orders passed by this Court and other Coordinate Benches to contend that the decision on the application for grant of licence is required to be taken after due consideration of threat perception and danger to life, liberty and property of individuals or group of individuals. For want of consideration of relevant facts, impugned order cannot withstand the test of judicial scrutiny and, therefore, is unsustainable. Respondent No.1 without even looking to the factual details in the report has recorded perverse observation while rejecting the application. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State justifies the order with reference to the policy enclosed as Annexure R-1 dated 26.3.2011 whereunder the general guidelines are provided for the purpose of grant of arm licence. 3. Having perused the same, in the opinion of this Court, even this policy has not been kept in mind while rejecting the application. As such, in the totality of facts and circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained, hence, the same is quashed. Maintaining parity with the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1661/2011 dated 8.12.2015, the respondents/State is directed to consider petitioner's application on the basis of material placed on record particularly reports of the local Police Administration and Collector and pass a detailed self-contained speaking order. Maintaining parity with the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1661/2011 dated 8.12.2015, the respondents/State is directed to consider petitioner's application on the basis of material placed on record particularly reports of the local Police Administration and Collector and pass a detailed self-contained speaking order. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of the order passed today. The petitioner shall also obtain a receipt / acknowledgment of such submission of the certified copy from the office of the respondents. 4. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.