Sant Lal vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned standing counsel.

In this case, no counter-affidavit has been filed although a stop order was passed on 17.2.1997. It appears that the Petitioner''s application for Arm licence has been rejected by the Collector mentioning a single word ''Nirast''. Against this order the Petitioner filed an appeal which has been allowed by the Commissioner and the order of the Collector has been set aside. Thereafter, the Petitioner moved an application for Arm licence on 3.2.1995 before the Collector along with certified copy of the order of the Commissioner, which is still pending. Hence, I direct the Collector to decide the Petitioner''s application within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

I would also like to make it clear that the Collector, if he is of the opinion that Arms licence is liable to be rejected then he should give some reasons. In a democratic society every citizen is entitled to know the reasons why his prayer has been rejected by the authority concerned and merely dismissing an application by the single word ''rejected'' is neither fair nor proper.

Hence, I issue a general mandamus that whenever the Collector rejects an application of any applicant, they must give some reason for doing so, and not merely write the word ''rejected''.

Let a certified copy of this judgment be sent by the Registrar to the Home Secretary, U.P. Government with a direction that he should circulate it to all the Collectors in the State.

With the above direction, the petition is disposed of finally.