Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1958 (ALL)

Madhurima Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-05-19

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. Heard Sri G.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing for the respondents. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 2.4.2013 passed by the District Magistrate/ Licensing Authority, Mau and the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh in Appeal No. 118/M of 2013. 2. Vide order dated 2.4.2013 the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence has been rejected by the District Magistrate on the ground that since against the husband and father-in-law of the petitioner, criminal cases are pending, in case licence is granted to the petitioner that may be misused whereas by the order dated 10.10.2013 the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 2.4.2013 has been dismissed. 3. The facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner herein has filed an application for grant of fire arm licence on 27.8.2012. When no decision was taken thereon, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 5730 of 2013 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Licensing Authority to decide the petitioner's application.? This writ petition was disposed of on 1.12.2013 with the direction to the Licensing Authority to decide the petitioner's application within a period of two months. It is thereafter, the District Magistrate by the impugned order dated 2.4.2013 has rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that since against the husband and father-in-law of the petitioner Criminal Case No. 537/94 under section 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, IPC read with section 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act is pending in case licence is granted to the petitioner there would be possibility of mis-use of the same. Aggrieved petitioner has filed an appeal against the order dated 2.4.2013 and the said appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 10.10.2013 holding that the District Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated 2.4.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that lodging of FIR against the husband and father and law of the petitioner could not be a ground for rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence. He further submits that the licence granted to the father-in-law of the petitioner has not been cancelled and it is still continuing. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that lodging of FIR against the husband and father and law of the petitioner could not be a ground for rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence. He further submits that the licence granted to the father-in-law of the petitioner has not been cancelled and it is still continuing. In the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner the Licensing Authority has erred in rejecting the petitioner's application only on the assumption and presumption. He has not examined the merit of the petitioner's application. There was no adverse report against the petitioner by the police authorities except that aforesaid criminal case pending against the husband and father-in-law of the petitioner. In the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner the appellate authority has not appreciated this aspect of the matter and dismissed the appeal. 5. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents submitted that there is no error in the impugned orders as it is not in dispute that the criminal case was lodged against the husband and father-in-law of the petitioner. In addition to that it has also been submitted that in view of the order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (M/B) No. 3268 of 2012 (Jitendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others) no fire arm licence, at present, can be granted for personal safety and security of the petitioner as in that case, only two exceptions have been carved out where the firearms licence can be granted, i.e., (1) the persons falling under family heirloom policy; and (2) victims of crime those having genuine need of firearms in the opinion of the District Magistrate. 6. 6. In response thereto learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by now situation has changed as the father-in-law of the petitioner has died and the petitioner is entitled for licence under family heirloom policy in view of the circular No. V-11016/16/2009-Arms dated 31.3.2010 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs addressed to the Secretary (Home Department) of all States and Union Territories, which reads as under: "Grant of Licences under family heirloom policy: Attention is invited to the instructions contained in MHA's letter No. V-11019/23/95-Arms dated 28.2.1995 regarding grant of licences to the legal heir of the existing licencee after the death of the licensee or the licensee has attained the age of 70 years or had held the weapon for 25 years or more. Normally, the scope of legal heirs is extended to husband, wife, son and daughter. It has been decided to extend the scope of legal heir ship to the son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother and sister of the existing licensee. Accordingly, the applications for transfer of weapons from the said categories of relatives of the licensee may also be considered subject to other conditions stipulated in the said letter." 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. So far as the impugned orders are concerned, both the orders have been passed on the assumptions and presumptions on the ground that in case fire arm licence is granted to the petitioner that may be mis-used. There was no concrete material either before the Licensing Authority or before the Appellate Authority to arrive at on such conclusion. It would transpire from the perusal of the record that there was nothing against the petitioner. The petitioner's personal credential indicates that she has never been indulged in any criminal activity or otherwise. Without there being any concrete material against the petitioner the Licensing Authority has erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence taking shelter of a criminal case against the husband and father-in-law of the petitioner and the appellate authority too has erred in dismissing the appeal. 8. In the result writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 2.4.2013 passed by the District Magistrate/ Licensing Authority, Mau as well as the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh in Appeal No. 118/M of 2013 are hereby quashed. 8. In the result writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 2.4.2013 passed by the District Magistrate/ Licensing Authority, Mau as well as the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh in Appeal No. 118/M of 2013 are hereby quashed. The Licensing Authority is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law taking note of the subsequent development that the father-in-law of the petitioner has died and in view of the circular dated 31.3.2010 the petitioner falls under the family heirloom policy as the same has also been accepted in the order dated 7.10.2013 passed by this Court in the case of Jitendra Singh (supra). This exercise has to be done by the District Magistrate expeditiously but not later than three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court.