Sunil Shukla, Advocate vs State of U.P. and Others

Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri. Vivek Misra and the learned standing counsel.

This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to consider and decide the application filed by the Petitioner for grant of licence of revolver/pistol. Time was granted to the learned Counsel for the Respondents for filing counter-affidavit. With the counter-affidavit a document dated 1.12.2008 has been filed, which is an order by which the application for grant of pistol licence has been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner is already having a D.B.B.L. 12 bore gun licence which was granted to the Petitioner in the year 2004. The ground taken in the said order is that the Petitioner has not disclosed the fact as to what are the reasons for having more than one fire arms and why he needs another licence of the pistol.

Sri. Vivek Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that under the Act there is no bar to have more than one licence in case it is necessary. Petitioner is having a huge property and, therefore, for the security for himself, he wants to have a licence of revolver. A 12 bore gun cannot be easily carried away from one place to another. The Respondents have not rejected the application on the ground of concealment of any fact. Even nothing is mentioned against the Petitioner to show that the Petitioner has ever misused the arm licence. In such circumstances, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order itself is bad and against the provisions of law. He has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Dr. Sardar Ahmad Khan v. District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur 1999 ACJ 1439. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that a bare reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that any person is entitled to acquire or possess three fire arms. Section 3 of the Act does not provide that for acquiring a licence for a second arm, the applicant has to disclose some special reason. In such circumstances, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed only to reject the claim of the Petitioner and that too without any reason.

A counter-affidavit has been filed. In Para 9 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that it is true that three arm licences can be granted to a person under the Arms Act but before issuing the licence it is necessary to be seen the actual need for the same and as the need of the Petitioner was not found genuine and correct, the order impugned has been passed rejecting the claim of the Petitioner.

I have considered the submissions of the parties and have perused the record. From the perusal of the Act it is clear that a person who is having arm licence, can make another application and can acquire and possess three fire arms and arm licences in view of Section 3 of the Act. Even the proviso requires a person having more than three arms on the date of amendment of the Act of 1983, which came into force, to surrender more than three arms. Thus, the acquiring and possessing of more than one arm is not prohibited. On the other hand, it is permitted. From the perusal of Section 3 of the Act, it appears that it does not provide that for acquiring a licence for the second arm, the applicant has to disclose some special reason. In case the law does not provide or prescribe, in that circumstances, the question is whether the authorities below can reject the application filed by a person disclosing this fact that he is having a licence of a particular arm. The application of other fire arm made by the Petitioner could have been rejected by the Respondents on the ground that the police report was not submitted in his favour. But this is not the position in the present case. The police authorities have submitted a report in favour of the Petitioner. Therefore, as the order passed by the District Magistrate does not disclose any reason for refusing the licence for possessing the D.B.B.L. gun by the Petitioner, the only reason assigned in the impugned order is that the Petitioner has not disclosed any special reason for acquiring the second arm licence. If law does not prohibit the Petitioner from obtaining another arm licence, it could not have been refused by the Respondents on the ground that special reasons to be recorded were required to be intimated in the application made by the Petitioner. In view of the aforesaid fact, the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 1.12.2008, cannot be sustained.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the District Magistrate, Annexure-2 to the amendment application dated 1.12.2008, is hereby quashed. The Respondents are directed to consider the application filed by the Petitioner for grant of revolver licence strictly in accordance with law and in view of the observations made above within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order

No order is passed as to costs.