IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the licensing authority must provide reasons for refusal of a licence application as mandated by Section 14(3) of the Arms Act, 1959.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 06.03.2012 passed by respondent No.2, whereby, the District Magistrate in compliance of the order dated 21.02.2012 passed by the Home Department of State Government has rejected his application seeking grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is a Colonizer and involved in Construction work, moved an application on 21.10.2010 for grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver in the prescribed proforma before the licensing Authority, i.e. respondent No.2 and submitted all the relevant documents along with the requisite fee. It is contended further that the Tahsildar, Bilaspur vide its letter dated 10.11.2010 had directed the Patwari to submit his report with regard to movable and immovable properties owned by the petitioner as to whether any land revenue is due on him or not and in pursuance to the said direction, the Patwari had submitted his report and intimated the Tahsildar that the petitioner had movable and immovable properties of about Rs.50 lacs and does not have any land revenue dues.

3. Further contention of the petitioner is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide its letter dated 13.12.2010 has also submitted his report before respondent No.2, while recommending for grant of licence to him with regard to nonprohibited Bore/Revolver, however, despite of such a report favouring to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 vide its impugned order dated 06.03.2012 has rejected his application for grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver, while intimating that his application has been rejected in pursuance to the memo bearing No.F.18-52/2/Home-C/2011 dated 21.02.2012, which was issued by the Home Department of the State. It is contended further that vide letter dated 19.11.2012, he approached the respondents for knowing about the reasons with regard to the rejection of his alleged application, but no reply was given, which compelled him for filing of the petition in the instant nature.

4. In reply to the aforesaid contention of the petitioner, it is stated by the respondents/State that although the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Bilaspur have recommended for grant of licence to the petitioner after due enquiry of his application, but a report so submitted was examined by the Home Department, wherein it was observed that since no specific danger to his life is pointed out, therefore, a clarification to this effect was sought for from the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur vide its communication letter dated 29.09.2011, who in turn, has informed vide its communication dated 11.10.2011 that no specific danger to his life has been noticed. It is stated further while referring to the Circular, dated 20.08.2010 issued by the State Government, particularly, Clause 2 (i), that the application for grant of licence for nonprohibited Bore arm could be considered only where the life of the applicant applying for such a licence is seriously in danger or may likely to be danger to his life and contended further that the application of the petitioner seeking grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver was considered in the light of the said Circular, wherein, no such circumstances were found to be noticed and accordingly, the application made by the petitioner on 21.10.2010 has been rejected vide order dated 21.02.2012, duly communicated to him vide order impugned dated 06.03.2012. It is stated further that although the petitioner had applied on 19.11.2012 for obtaining the reasons of refusal of his alleged application, but since the same was not in public interest as per the provisions prescribed under sub-section(3) of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act, 1959’), therefore, it was rejected vide order dated 17.12.2012.

5. Shri Ankit Singhal, assisted by Shri Ashish Mittal, learn