Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Danish vs State Of U.P. And Others on 3 October, 2012
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27624 of 2006
Petitioner :- Mohd. Danish
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Shailendra Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
Time granted to file counter affidavit has expired long before still no counter affidavit has been filed.
Father of the petitioner was holding arm licence to keep a SBBL gun who died on 29.02.2004 and thereupon the petitioner deposited the gun with an arms dealer. Thereafter petitioner applied for grant for licence to him. The application was registered as Case No.73 of 2004. D.M. Fatehpur through order dated 18.01.2006 rejected the application. It is specifically mentioned in the order that the other legal representatives of deceased licence holder had given affidavit in favour of the petitioner and according to the report of the S.P. petitioner had no criminal history and grant of licence was recommended. A.D.M. also reported that there was no objection for grant of licence. Still the D.M. rejected the application for grant of licence on the ground that according to the policy of the government arm licence shall not be given to the persons who do not, necessarily actually require the arm licence. There is absolutely no reference to the details of the said policy. Neither the date nor the number of the communication/ order has been mentioned. It has not been explained what is meant by actual need. Does it mean that the person applying for arm licence must have got several enemies, must have been attacked and received severe injuries etc. ? If the matter had not been quite old, the Court would have required the D.M. concerned to file the copies of the orders which he might have passed while granting licences to allegedly needy persons to discern the meaning of need. Against the order dated 18.01.2006 petitioner filed Appeal No.16 of 2005-06. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad through order dated 27.02.2006 dismissed the appeal referring to the judgment of the High Court in Jagpal Vs. State, 1977 ACC Page 499 holding that D.M. is the best judge to decide whether to grant the licence or not. Even Supreme Court and High Court judges while deciding the matters are duty bound to give valid reasons. To be the best judge does not mean that the authority concerned has got the right to decide the case by toss of coin. In Writ Petition No.21605 of 2006, Abdul Rahman Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 04.09.2012 I held as follows in the last two paragraphs:
"Probably the authorities below were of the opinion that unless someone very seriously injured the petitioner he could not be granted fire arm licence. Some times first symptom of heart attack is instant death. Similarly some times first evidence of threat to some ones life is his murder. The matter is quite old otherwise the court would have asked the D.M. concerned to produce the orders in which he had allowed the applications for grant of fire arm licence to ascertain that on what basis the D.M. concerned was granting fire arm licences.
Unless there is some thing adverse against the applicant fire arm licence can not be denied to him vide Pawan Kumar Jha Vs. State of U.P. & others 2010(10) A.D.J. 782 and Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. 2012(8) A.D.J. 170. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. If till date no criminal case has been lodged against the petitioner then he must immediately, in no case beyond one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the D.M. Allahabad be granted the fire Arm licence. Writ petition is allowed."
In the aforesaid authority of Dinesh Kumar Pandey referred in the above judgment the matter has very thoroughly been examined by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Innumerable cases are coming before the Court where without any reason grant of licence to hold fire arm is being denied on the ground that there is no actual need. The authorities below must realise that more often than not fire arm is required to prevent a crime and not to commit the same. A person who wants to commit a crime does not wait for grant of fire arm licence.
Accordingly, it is directed that if henceforth any such matter comes before the Court where D.M. has refused to grant the arm licence on patent/ frivolous ground that actual need had not been proved by the applicant, direction will be issued for making adverse entry in the service record of the said D.M.
Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. D.M. shall pass fresh order within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If no criminal case is pending against the petitioner, licence shall be granted to him.
Office is directed to supply copy of this order free of cost to Sri A.S. Rana, learned standing counsel within a week. Sri Rana shall send copies of this order to each and every D.M. of the State as well as to the Home Secretary and Chief Secretary to the government of State.
Order Date :- 3.10.2012
NLY
