D.S. Chaudhary vs Lt. Governor and Another

Sanjiv Khanna, J.—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.

The petitioner, however, is not satisfied and claims that he is entitled to all India arms licence. He relies upon judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ganesh Chandra Bhatt Vs. District Magistrate, Almora and others, . It is submitted that the petitioner is an advocate and has appeared in the High Courts of Chandigarh and Shimla.

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 may be considered.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 Bengal and Bihar.

The Writ petition is dismissed.