Ajay Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. and Others

Anjani Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel in opposition of this writ petition. In view of the order proposed to be passed herein. It is not necessary to invite a counter-affidavit.

A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that it does not contain any reason as to why the petitioner has been found disentitled for grant of firearm''s license.

In view of the Section 14(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, which clearly provides that if the licensing authority refuses to grant license, it must record its reason. Section 14(3) is reproduced below :

"(3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a license to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any ease the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement."

In view of this mandatory provisions the order dated 4.1.2003, (Annexure-1), impugned in the present writ petition, deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to cost.