Surjeet Singh vs The State Of U.P. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 29 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 2
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16551 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Surjeet Singh
 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- D.K. Ojha
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 4.4.2012, an affidavit has been filed by Sri Anil Kumar-III, District Magistrate, Allahabad stating that after receipt of order dated 4.4.2012 firearm licence has been granted to petitioner.

2. This Court is not concerned as to whether petitioner is granted firearm licence or not but real concern of the Court is why petitioner's application for grant of firearm licence, which was a statutory application under Section 13 of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") remained pending for the last more than a decade. The Court required explanation for this lethargy/inaction on the part of respondent no. 2.

3. In this regard no reason or explanation has been given in the affidavit. In para 6 and 7 of the affidavit, it is said that besides the work under Act, the District Magistrate is also required to perform duties of multifarious nature. Staff posted in Arms Section is insufficient to meet the work load. It is also said that from 2000 to 2010, the number of firearms licence pending is 29258. Interestingly enough, the figure does not show total number of applications filed in these years, and how many applications have been disposed of, The data constitute only one part, i.e. pending applications. It is however admitted that most of the applications are pending and have not been disposed. The figures of pendency of yearwise cases vis-a-vis different Police Stations of District Allahabad as enumerated by District Magistrate is as under:

Fkkuk

;ksx

dksjkao

uSuh

djNuk

estk

dkSf/k;kjk

ek.Mk

vkS|ksfxd {ks=

[khjh

ykykiqj

ckjk

'kadjx<+

?kwjiqj

djSyh

tktZVkmu

duZyxat

/kweuxat

fiijh

'kkgxat

iwjkeqQ~rh

dksrokyh

f'kodqVh

[kqYnkckn

dS.V

vrjlqb;k

eqV~Bhxat

flfoyykbZUl

dhMxat

nkjkxat

Lkjk;eejst

Lkjk; buk;r

uokcxat

lksjkao

Qwyiqj

gf.M;k

mrjkWo

>wWalh

eÅvkbek

Ckgfj;k

gksykx<+

FkjobZ

;ksx%&

29258

4. This is a very disturbing and sorry state of affairs in respect to firearm licence by the competent licensing authority.

5. The grant of firearm licence does not depend only on whims and caprice of authorities irrespective of all other things. It is a matter of serious nature. Almost in all these cases where firearm licences have been applied, common ground stated by applicants is personal safety and security. It cannot be doubted that right to life and liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution. This right is not meant to be exercised to live an animal life but a respected, self esteemed and honourable life. Whatever is required to live a smooth life would constitute an integral part of the aforesaid right. It is no doubt true that law and order in the society is prime responsibility of State but simultaneously the individuals' right, to keep itself in a straight fitness so as to live a safe and secured life cannot be divested from his fundamental right of 'life and liberty' under Article 21 of Constitution. The possession of a weapon or firearm for the purpose of security and safety is one of the device to protect right of life and liberty. Considering the very nature of the item, it also cannot be disputed that possession and use of firearm can be regulated and restricted by State in accordance with procedure prescribed in law and in the interest of law and public order etc. for the reason that individual's right vis-a-vis the right of State to maintain tranquillity and public peace in the Society have to be balanced uniformly. It is in these circumstances, regulatory provisions have been made in the Arms Act to keep control over possession of firearm by public at large. The competent licensing authorities under the Act cannot treat this right as if the citizen would depend in the matter of grant of licence on the whims, caprice and imaginations of authorities concerned. On the contrary, the competent licensing authority has to apply its mind to the concept of safety and security of individuals which is a constitutional right vis-a-vis the larger societal interest.

6. It is also not disputed that the Act does not contemplate a time frame for passing an order on an application submitted by an individual for grant of firearm licence but it is well settled that when a provision has been made in a Statute entitling the individual to seek exercise of regulatory power by the competent authority, such authority must exercise its power in a reasonable manner which includes within it a reasonable time. The Court is informed that State Government has issued orders from time to time requiring the authorities under Arms Act to take a decision on an application under Section 13 of Act for grant of firearm licence within a period of three months. The aforesaid period if not taken to be obligatory and, in given case, if the facts and circumstances so justify, the competent authority may take some more time but as a general rule, the applications must be decided within this period. This Court, on the contrary, finds that thousands and more applications every year are lying pending for the last more than a decade. Respondents have not given the details as to whether these applications which are pending are those which have been received later in point of time and whether in passing the orders on the applications the licensing authority has taken up the matter serially i.e. earlier application first and thereafter subsequent applications. The District Magistrate admits that while the applications of 2000, 2001 and 2002 are pending, it cannot be disputed that may applications received in subsequent years have been disposed of. A larger number of applications filed in the year 2011 have already been disposed of while quite larger number of 2001 are still pending. This shows a selective treatment to the applications received from individuals inasmuch as instead of taking up the matter on the principle of "first come-first serve" the licensing authorities are indiscreetly passing orders on applications irrespective of time and turn in which they are received. This attitude and approach, besides being illegal, is also discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of Constitution. No reason has been assigned as to why the subsequent applications are being attended while sitting tight over the previous applications. No reason has been assigned as to why applications for the last ten years are kept pending and have not been disposed of. This state of affairs, besides others, also demonstrate an attitude of total inaction and apathy on the part of the then licensing authorities who held the Office at the relevant time and failed to discharge their statutory function with due care, bona fide and reasonableness.

7. The defence that District Magistrate has to discharge multifarious duties and therefore does not get enough time to attend these applications is not open to be taken by District Magistrate for the reason when a statute has been enacted by Legislature conferring certain powers upon an authority, all these aspects are deemed to have been taken care by the Legislature. It is not the case of licensing authority that in Allahabad or anywhere else in the State of U.P. any licensing authority has ever requested the Government to delegate licensing power to any other authority for the reason that District Magistrates are overburdened with work under various Statutes and it is difficult for them to take up and discharge statutory function within reasonable time owing to excessive work load which has become virtually impossible to be discharged reasonably. The District Magistrate could not dispute that at least from Allahabad no such correspondence has been made by the licensing authority to the State Government in this regard.

8. So far as the complaint of paucity of staff is concerned, it is again not disputed that at no point of time the licensing authority has ever taken any step for extension of staff or creation of more posts or for posting of more persons to cope-up the work. This ground raised for the first time before this Court is only a pretext and afterthought having no real substance and basis.

9. In view of above, in my opinion it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition in the following manner:

(i) All the pending applications for grant of firearm licence upto 31.12.2010 in the District of Allahabad must be taken up serially and shall be disposed of finally within a period of six months from today.

(ii) Since petitioner's application for firearm licence has been disposed of finally, no further direction need be issued in this regard, but for the harassment suffered by petitioner due to illegal inaction on the part of respondents, he shall be entitled to cost quantified to Rs. 5,000/-.

(iii) The aforesaid amount, at the first instance, shall be paid by respondent no. 1 but it shall have liberty to recover the aforesaid amount from the officer(s) concerned who held the Office of District Magistrate, Allahabad from the date petitioner's application for firearm licence was submitted till it was decided and who are found guilty for undue delay and laches and total inaction after making appropriate inquiry in accordance with law.

(iv) It shall also be open to respondent no. 1 i.e. State of U.P. to take appropriate disciplinary action against these licensing authorities who kept the matter pending without any reason for the last more than a decade. The State Government shall also look into the Chart submitted as Annexure 2 to the affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 which depicts a very sad state of affairs showing that even more than a thousand applications for the year 2001 are still pending and the situation is more grave and grim in respect to subsequent years.

(v) This is a fit matter where Officers holding Office of District Magistrate in the relevant years deserve to be dealt with appropriate disciplinary action for their inaction.

(vi) The State Government may also re-look in the difficulties faced by licensing authorities in such matters and may consider de-centralization of power.

10. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Dt. 9.4.2012

PS