The possession of Arms is a privilege granted for self-defense based on genuine necessity, not a fundamental right, and should not be granted at the whims and fancies of individuals.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) and the order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi (Appellate Authority) thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking grant of an Arms licence.

2. The petitioner had applied for obtaining a fire Arms licence. The application stated that the necessity for the weapon was ‘for personal safety (self protection)’.

3. The petitioner claims to be employed as a Project Manager in a private company, which is engaged in construction business.

4. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 10.05.2016 stating the following reasons:-

“1. You do not have any good reason for grant of an Arms license.

2. You do not have any specific threat.

3. In the report from Local Police, as required under Section 13(2) of Arms Act, 1959, your case has been returned to this office and the case is not recommended from their side.”

5. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Lt. Governor of Delhi. The appeal has been rejected by the Lt. Governor by the second impugned order dated 05.10.2016.

6. In the appeal, the petitioner stated that being a Project Manager, the petitioner deals with heavy cash transactions in order to give payment to labourers and other sub-contractors and the petitioner also needs to go to market to purchase raw materials, in cash, for construction activities. The petitioner has to keep approximately Rs. 2 to 3 lakhs ready at every time at the site office for running of the construction activities. It was stated that the petitioner needs to keep an Arm with him for his personal safety as well as for the safety of the cash belonging to the company.

7. By the impugned order dated 05.10.2016, Lt. Governor has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The Lt. Governor found that no sufficient reason was shown by the petitioner as to the necessity of holding an Arm. The Lt. Governor opined that mere dealing in cash transactions and that also of a company in which the petitioner is employed, was not a sufficient reason for obtaining and possessing of an Arms licence. The Lt. Governor was of the view that there was no infirmity in the report of the Local Police with regard to absence of necessity for grant of any Arms licence.

8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above decision has impugned the same citing the same reasons as were stated in the appeal under section 18 of the Act.

9. It is contended in the petition that the petitioner is engaged in construction company having turnover of nearly Rs.100 crores and more than 200 employees are working in the company. There are around 100 daily wage workers who are working in the company on day-today basis.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner was dealing in cash on behalf of his company. There was a necessity of obtaining an Arms licence for his personal safety as well as for protection of the cash of the company.

11. Learned counsel further relied on statement of objects and reasons of the Act to contend that one of the objects of the Act is to ensure that weapons for self defence are available for all citizens under license unless their antecedents or propensities do not disentitle them for the privilege.

12. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a coordinate bench of this court dated 20.09.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 5959/2013 titled ‘SAHIL KOHLI VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE’ to contend that unless a situation contemplated by sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Act did not exist, Arms licence could not be denied, solely on the ground that there is no specific threat to the applicant or his family members.

13. Relying on the said decision, it is contended that it is the applicant’s own perception of threat to life or property, whi