Delhi High Court
Nirankar Rastogi vs Joint Commissioner Of Police & Anr on 18 September, 2015
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8893/2015
NIRANKAR RASTOGI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.R. Singh and Mr. Prashant
Singh, Advs.
Versus
JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kush Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 18.09.2015
CM No.19992/2015 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8893/2015
3. The petition impugns the order dated 17th March, 2015 of the Joint
Commissioner of Police rejecting the application of the petitioner for an
armed licence as well as the order dated 27 th May, 2015 of Hon'ble Lt.
Governor dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner thereagainst.
4. The petitioner claims to be a bullion dealer, who owing to the
exigency of his business, is required to carry cash as much as of Rs.20 lakhs
at times and applied for armed licence claiming threat to his life.
5. It is not as if the authorities whose orders are impugned have not
considered the aforesaid aspect. They have, after consideration, not found
any perception of threat to the petitioner. The order of the Appellate
Authority records that the ground on which the petitioner claims to have
perceived threat to himself were verified and it was found that the petitioner
had picked a quarrel with some persons on the issue of motorcycle parking
and Hon'ble the Lt. Governor held that the same does not amount to a threat
perception.
6. The petitioner, in the petition itself relies on the judgments of the
same learned Single Judge of this Court in Vinod Kumar Vs. State 2014 (2)
RLR 590 and Sahil Kohli Vs. Additional Commissioner of Police 2014 (2)
RLR 711 where, on the plea of threat perception, the order of refusal of
licence was quashed and issuance of armed licence ordered.
7. I may notice that else the consistent view of this Court and other
Courts in (i) Sunil Kumar Bharala Vs. State of U.P. MANU/UP/0481/2015
(DB); (ii) Gulab Radhwaj Vs. State of U.P. MANU/UP/0498/2015 (DB);
(iii) Dr. Pankaj Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. MANU/UP/0558/2014 (DB);
and, (iv) Om Prakash Rai Vs. State of U.P. MANU/UP/0846/2014 (DB)
has been that a perception of threat is a question of fact which cannot be
assessed by the individual himself but can only be assessed by the
investigating agencies and it is not the domain of the Writ Court to consider
whether a threat perception exits in favour of a particular person or not. I
have in Shiv S. Sharma Vs. Union of India MANU /DE /1024 /2010 held
that the Court cannot foray into determining whether there is any threat to
any individual and the same is purely in the domain of executive functions
and that the level scale of perception is subjective; what an impartial person
adjudicating with an objective view may perceive as a threat of a lesser level
scale, is bound to be a threat of a higher level scale to the threatened person.
Similar observations are to be found in Suhaib Ilyasi Vs. Union of India
MANU/DE/1153/2002 where also, it was observed that a person may
overreact or over-play the threat and the decision of security agencies and
experts in this regard is not to be substituted by the opinion either of the
petitioner or of the Court unless it is shown that the decision is wholly
arbitrary or perverse and has failed to consider the relevant material
produced. The Division Bench of this Court in Shri Ashwini Kr. Chopra Vs.
Union of India AIR 2011 Delhi 154 also held that right under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India is not absolute and grant of security cover is within
the executive domain and it is the executive which is in the best know of
when and what sort of security cover be granted to a particular person. It
was further held that no one can claim as a matter of legal right to be given a
particular security cover.
8. A Division Bench of this Court in Parveen Kumar Beniwal Vs. Govt.
of NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/1304/2015 held that a citizen cannot assert a
right to hold a firearm licence on the ground of threat perception and that
whether there is a perception of threat to the security of a citizen has to be
considered by the licensing authority and not by the Courts. A Division
Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh has taken the same view in G.
Subas Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1997 Cri LJ 1296.
9. I have in this regard enquired from the counsel for the petitioner that
whether not all residents of this city live under some kind of threat or not
and whether on the basis of their own perception, whether all would be
entitled to arms licence.
10. The counsel for the petitioner contends that arms licence should be
granted to whosoever desires the same. The aforesaid is contrary to the dicta
of the Division Bench of this Court in Praveen Kumar Beniwal supra.
11. There is thus no merit in the petition, dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
SEPTEMBER 18, 2015
bs..
