Abdul Kafi vs District Magistrate, Allahabad and Another

Anjani Kumar, J.

This writ petition was heard and allowed by me vide my order dated 5th September, 2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for allowing the aforesaid writ petition.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Licensing authority/District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 17th June, 1999, Annexure7 to the writ petition, whereby petitioner''s representation has been rejected, who had applied for grant of firearm licence i.e. a D.B.B.L. gun, despite the reports of all the concerned authorities in favour of petitioner for grant of licence. It is submitted that petitioner has also deposited the National Saving Certificate worth Rs.5,000/ on 1st July, 1992, in this regard. The City Magistrate, Allahabad vide his report dated 20th July, 1992 has also recommended for grant of licence. However, licensing authority overruling the aforesaid recommendation, as already stated, vide his order dated 25th August, 1992 passed an order refusing to grant the firearm licence of the petitioner merely on the ground that petitioner has not stated in his application form as to from whom person he has danger to his life and there is no such police report also. In this view of the matter, the application has been held to be not maintainable and has been rejected.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid refusal to grant of firearm licence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority vide its order dated 3rd July, 1995 allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter before the licensing authority with a direction to pass a reasoned order. The matter remained pending before the licensing authority when petitioner filed writ petition No.22718 of 1996 before this court and this court vide its order dated 23rd July, 1996 disposed of the petition. The operative portion of the order dated 23rd July, 1996 is reproduced below:

"Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, I direct that the respondent No.1 to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for grant of the licence, by means of speaking order, within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of the order of this court is produced before him.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally."

Pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by this court, the licensing authority vide its order dated 6th September, 1997 reiterated his earlier order that the petitioner has not mentioned the necessity and justification for firearm and there is no such reference in the police report also. In this view of the matter, the application for grant of firearm licence of the petitioner is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. Thereafter petitioner filed a representation before the licensing authority, which remains pending when petitioner filed second writ petition before this court being 38706 of 1997, which has been disposed of by this Court on 28th November, 1997. The operative portion of the order dated 28th November, 1997 is reproduced below:

"I direct the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of three months. With these observations, this petition is disposed of."

The petitioner along with the aforesaid order passed by this court filed a representation addressed to the Licensing Authority/District Magistrate, Allahabad, a copy whereof is appended as Annexure6 to the writ petition. The licensing authority again rejected the petitioner''s application/ representation for grant of firearm licence on the ground that petitioner has not filed any representation and therefore pursuance to the direction of this court, petitioner''s application is liable to be rejected as the petitioner has reiterated the same reasons and grounds for which the application for grant of firearm licence has already been rejected. This order was passed by the licensing authority on 17th June, 1999. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the order dated 17th June, 1999 passed by the licensing authority with a further prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to grant firearm licence to the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that an application for grant of firearm licence under the provision of Arms Act can be refused only on the ground, which is relevant in the context of the grant of firearm licence. The Scheme of the Arms Act does not contemplate that a licence of firearm shall be granted only when somebody has apprehension to his life from someone. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the view taken by the licensing authority, as stated above, that since the petitioner has not mentioned as to who are the persons from whom he has apprehension to his life and property and further there is no police report to this effect also, therefore application of the petitioner for grant of firearm licence is liable to be rejected, amounts to rejection of application of firearm licence on wholly irrelevant consideration and it is also submitted that in this view of the matter, the order passed by the licensing authority rejecting the application for grant of firearm licence of the petitioner deserves to be quashed and petitioner is entitled for grant of the licence, applied for.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents tried to justify the order passed by the licensing authority, which has been challenged in the present petition but, in my opinion, he failed to substantiate and support the reasoning given in the order. Learned Standing Counsel also could not point out any provision under the Arms Act on the basis whereof the reasoning given by the licensing authority for rejecting the petitioner''s application for grant of firearm licence can be justified.

In this view of the matter, the order impugned in the present writ petition refusing to grant of the firearm licence of the petitioner on the ground mentioned in the said order is not supported by any statutory provision and cannot be said to be relevant consideration on which the application of the petitioner should be rejected. In this view of the matter, the order dated 17th June, 1999 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The prayer of mandamus prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner that licensing authority may be directed to grant the firearm licence to the petitioner cannot be granted. However, a direction is issued to the licensing authority to consider the petitioner''s application for grant of firearm licence in accordance with law and not to reject the same on the ground on which it has been rejected by the present impugned order. The petitioner is directed to file an application along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court before the licensing authority within fifteen days from today, who shall decide the same in accordance with law within a period three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the licensing authority.

In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17th June, 1999, Annexure7 to the writ petition is quashed. Order accordingly.

(Petition allowed)