Delhi High Court
D.S. Chaudhary vs Lt. Governor & Another on 7 August, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
13.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 993/2008
Date of decision: 7th August, 2009
D.S.CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through Petitioner in person.
versus
LT.GOVERNOR & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Jyoti Singh & Mr. Amandeep Joshi,
Advocates for Delhi Police/GNCTD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
%
1. Mr. D.S. Chauhan, the petitioner, has filed the present writ petition
for direction to the respondents to extend the area validity of his arms
licence to all India. The petitioner was initially issued an arm licence valid
for Delhi. Subsequently, vide order dated 24th July, 2007 the area validity
of the arms licence was extended to Assam and U.P. with carrying facility
through the States of Haryana, Bihar and West Bengal.
2. The petitioner, however, is not satisfied and claims that he is
W.P. (C) No. 993/2008 Page 1
entitled to all India arms licence. He relies upon judgment of the
Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganesh Chandra Bhatt versus
District Magistrate, Almora and others, AIR 1993 ALLAHABAD 291. It
is submitted that the petitioner is an advocate and has appeared in the
High Courts of Chandigarh and Shimla.
3. Respondents have placed on record the policy decisions dated 4th
April, 1997 and 15th June, 1998 with regard to validity area of arms
licences for non-prohibited bore arms licences. As per policy dated 4th
April, 1997, the area validity of arms licence has to be considered and
granted on the following parameters:-
"GOVERNMENT OFFICERS:
i) All-India extension may be granted only to the
Group „A‟ officers and Commissioned Officers of
the Armed Forces.
ii) In the case of Group „B‟ officers, the area validity
should be specific in relation to a particular
State(s) or Territories only. This will also apply to
the cases of J.C.O.s of the Armed Forces.
iii) In other cases, the area extension permission
may be given only in respect of the native State
or States or territories which would be adjoining
or otherwise for a very limited number of
States/territories say 1-3 States.
OTHERS:
In the case of businessman, the standing,
the nature of business and the area of operation
should be the guiding factor. Normally, the area
validity should be extended to specified States
only but in case the business is spreadover to
several States or the applicant has to transit
through several States then all-India extension
W.P. (C) No. 993/2008 Page 2
may be considered."
4. Policy dated 15th June, 1998 refers to documents, which are
required to be submitted by applicants for considering their claim for area
validity. The documents/details required are as under:-
"Details of the Documents is required
FARMER -Copy of Land Revenue record.
Copy of Khatooni,
BUSINESSMAN -Area of operation of the
Business. He had to
give details of branches and
their address,
-Photocopy of proof of
financial transaction on the
form of Bank Draft or Cheque,
PRIVATE COMPANY EMPLOYEE- Branches,
Addresses of Company with documents of proof,
GOVT. SERVANTS- Service itself indicate that
whether he is eligible for All India licence or Not.
-Photocopy of Identity Card and certificate
of employer.
TIME LIMIT- All applications alongwith documents
received in D.C.P. (Licencing) office should be
sent to Home Department within 30 days of
receipt of applications."
5. The aforesaid two policy decisions are not under challenge in this
writ petition. Even otherwise the policy decisions as quoted fix a
reasonable and rational criteria on the basis of which request is required to
W.P. (C) No. 993/2008 Page 3
be examined and considered by the respondents. Issue of arms licences
to businessmen or non-Government servants depends upon nature of
business and the area of operation, which is the guiding factor as per
policy decision dated 4th April, 1997. The area validity should normally
extend to specified States only and in cases where the business is spread
over in several States and an applicant has to transit through several
States, all India extension request may be considered. As per circular
dated 15th June, 1998 while examining a request for area validity in case
of a businessman, details of his branches, their addresses and photocopy
of the financial transactions are required to satisfy the authorities about
the area of operation of business.
6. The petitioner along with his application had submitted documents
in form of receipts issued by the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench and
orders passed by the Gauhati High Court in cases where he had appeared
along with the cause lists. He had filed on record copy of the khatoni of
the land owned by him in the State of U.P. With regard to other States,
the petitioner had filed photocopy of one order passed by High Court of
Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in the year, 1999. He had filed on record a letter
inviting the petitioner for a marriage to Kerala and a letter written by a
Government employee sending him copy of a charge sheet for his
comments/opinion. No documents or details with regard to any case or
his appearance in courts of other States were filed. In view of the
W.P. (C) No. 993/2008 Page 4
documents placed on record by the petitioner in support of his application,
it is apparent that the respondents have acted as per the policy and have
validly issued an arms licence to him for the State of Delhi, U.P. and
Assam with carrying facility in the State of Bihar, West Bengal and
Haryana.
7. The petitioner submitted that in his neighbourhood some
Government servants have been granted all India licence contrary to the
policy and, therefore, the petitioner has been discriminated. This
contention has to be rejected. If error, mistake or wrong has been
committed by the respondents in one case, the said error cannot be
compounded and given approval by the Court by issuing mandamus. A
wrong action cannot confer any legal right and claim based upon Article 14
of the Constitution.
8. Judgment of the Allahabad High Court relied upon by the petitioner
states that every citizen has right to protect himself and there is break
down of law and order. In the present case, fire arms licence has been
granted to the petitioner but within restricted area. I do not think the said
judgment can assist the petitioner.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not think any further orders
or directions are required to be issued in the present case as the petitioner
has already been granted a fire arms licence with validity for the States of
Delhi, U.P. and Assam with carrying facility in the States of Haryana, West
W.P. (C) No. 993/2008 Page 5
Bengal and Bihar.
The Writ petition is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
AUGUST 07, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 993/2008 Page 6
