Court No. 21
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1571 of 2010
Chandra Prakash Maurya
Versus
State of U.P and others
Hon'ble V.K.Shukla,J.
Present writ petition in question has been filed by petitioner
questioning the validity of the order dated 15.06.2009 passed by Licensing
Authority refusing to accorded fire arm license to petitioner and order of its
affirmance in Appeal dated 05.10.2009.
Brief background of the case is that petitioner has applied for grant of
fire arm license on 04.03.2008. On said application being moved report was
submitted and based on the said report order of cancellation was passed
and thereafter Appeal has been preferred Appeal and same has also been
dismissed.
Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged, and thereafter,
present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with
the consent of the parties.
Sri Abhinav Tripathi, Advocate appearing with Sri Amar Nath Sharma,
Advocate contended with vehemence that in the present case on totally
unsustainable ground on mere surmises and conjecture application of the
petitioner for grant of license has been rejected, as such writ petition
deserves to be allowed.
Countering the said submission learned Standing counsel on the other
hand contended that rightful action has been taken and as such no
interference should be made.
After respective arguments have been advanced factual position
which is emerging in the present case, that petitioner had applied for grant
of fire arm license and while moving said application petitioner had clearly
mentioned therein that it was required for self defence. After said
application in question has been moved application form bears different
endorsement of different authority making recommendation in favour of
petitioner for grant of fire arm. Said endorsement made finds place at page
2
26 of the paper book. However on 08.04.2009 Circle Officer submitted
report that petitioner was interested in getting fire arm without any purpose
and he can misuse the same and is man with aggressive tendency. After
said report had been submitted the Licensing Authority based on the same
rejected the the application. Against the said order of rejection petitioner
preferred Appeal, same has also been dismissed. No reasons whatsoever
has come forward as to under what circumstances earlier recommendations
made in favour of petitioner for grant of fire arm, have been reversed and
what was the fresh material before the Circle Officer to reverse the said
recommendation and from fresh opinion that petitioner was of aggressive
tendency and there was no requirement of fire arm and there are possibility
of misuse of fire arm. Said report of Circle Officer has been made in
mechanical manner without undertaking any real and genuine exercise in
respect of request of petitioner, inasmuch as there is nothing on record to
show and suggest as to at in what way and manner such opinion has been
formed. Once report dated 08.04.2009, at page 27 of the paper book is
found to be without any foundation and basis and Licensing Authority has
not at all discussed as to from where such opinion of Circle Officer has been
formed such action cannot be approved of. Parameter for grant or refusal of
fire arm license has been provided for under Section 13 and 14 of the Arms
Act, and on such parameters claim has not been adverted to.
Consequently, present writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders
dated 15.06.2009 passed by Licensing Authority and the order of its
affirmance in Appeal dated 05.10.2009 passed by Appellate Forum are
hereby quashed. The District Magistrate is directed to reconsider the
application of the petitioner for grant of firearm licence, and take
appropriate decision, in accordance with law, preferably within three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Dated 30.07.2010
Dhruv