SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(All) 352

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. SARAN
ABDUL HAMEED - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/collector, ALLAHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 3222 Of 1992
Decided On : 07/20/1993

Advocates Appeared:
Indra Raj Singh

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS EMBEDDED IN ART. 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND HENCE IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

Headnote:

ARMS ACT - GRANT OF LICENCE - SECTION 3, 9 - COURT HELD THAT THE REFUSAL OF LICENCE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE ARE ALREADY 33 LICENCES IN THE VILLAGE OF THE PETITIONER IS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE. THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS EMBEDDED IN ART. 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND HENCE IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

Fact of the Case:

THE PETITIONER, ABDUL HAMEED, APPLIED FOR A LICENCE FOR A D. B. B. L. GUN, STATING THAT UNSOCIAL ELEMENTS HAD TURNED THEIR EVIL EYES TOWARDS HIS LIFE AND PROPERTY. THE POLICE OF P. S. SARAON RECOMMENDED THE GRANT OF LICENCE. HOWEVER, THE CITY MAGISTRATE AND THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE REFUSED TO GRANT THE LICENCE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WERE ALREADY 33 LICENCES IN THE PETITIONER'S VILLAGE.

Finding of the Court:

THE COURT HELD THAT THE REFUSAL OF LICENCE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE ARE ALREADY 33 LICENCES IN THE VILLAGE OF THE PETITIONER IS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE. THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS EMBEDDED IN ART. 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND HENCE IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

Issues: WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF LICENCE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE ARE ALREADY 33 LICENCES IN THE VILLAGE OF THE PETITIONER IS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE.

Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT RELIED ON THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. D. T. C. MAZDOOR CONGRESS, WHERE THE COURT HELD THAT "THERE IS NEED TO MINIMISE THE SCOPE OF THE ARBITRARY USE OF POWER IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE, IT IS INADVISABLE TO DEPEND ON THE GOOD SENSE OF THE INDIVIDUALS, HOWEVER, HIGHLY PLACED THEY MAY BE. IT IS ALL THE MORE IMPROPER AND UNDESIRABLE TO EXPOSE THE PRECIOUS RIGHTS LIKE THE RIGHT OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY TO THE VAGARIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHIMS AND FANCIES, AND DO NOT BECOME WISE BECAUSE THEY OCCUPY THE HIGH SEATS OF POWER. . . . . . . . . "

Final Decision: THE COURT ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AND DIRECTED THE CITY MAGISTRATE, ALLAHABAD TO ISSUE A LICENCE TO THE PETITIONER FOR A D. B. B. L. GUN WITHIN TWO WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF PRODUCTION OF A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDER BEFORE HIM.

V. SARAN, J.

( 1 ) ABDUL Hameed s/o Late Ali Husain r/o Village Malak Harhar, P. S. Saraon, District Allahabad, by means of this writ petition, has challenged the order of the City Magistrate, Allahabad dated 29-8-1992, as confirmed by the order dated 1 -11-1992 of the District Magistrate, Allahabad (Appellate Authority) refusing to grant licence for D. B. B. L. gun to the petitioner. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner belongs to a respectable family which has sufficient immovable property but of late unsocial elements have turned their evil eyes towards the life and property of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, made an application for the licence of a D. B. B. L. gun. It is further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner does not suffer from any disqualification for obtaining a gun licence, that the police of P. S. Saraon has recommended the grant of licence vide its report dated 23-7-1992. The order of the City Magistrate, dated 29-8-1992 is quoted in Para No. 6 of the writ petition. The only reason assigned for the refusal of the licence to the petitioner is that in the village of the petitioner there are 33 licences. Only for the above reason the learned City Magistrate has refused to grant licence to the petitioner.

( 2 ) ON 3-2-1993 the learned Standing Counsel prayed for (and) was granted two weeks time to file a counter-affidavit. No counter-affidavit was filed vide office report dated 26-2-1993. The case came up before me on 29-3-1993. The learned Standing Counsel orally requested that further time be granted for counter-affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel, however, could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why the counter-affidavit was not filed even though sufficient time has elapsed. The case is of Allahabad District and even a weeks time was more than sufficient for filing a counter-affidavit. It has become almost a practice for the concerned officials to take time without any reason and cases linger on indefinitely on this score. This sort of practice also breeds corruption, therefore, no further time was allowed.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel on merits of the case.

( 4 ) THE only ground, on which licence has been refused to the petitioner is that there are already 33 licences in the village of the petitioner. This is hardly a ground for refusal of licence to the petitioner because if the petitioner requires licence for protection of his life and property any number of fire arms in the village have no bearing on his need. It is a common knowledge that now a days no one dares to come out to protect others at the risk of ones ownself and further get involved in unnecessary proceedings before the police and ultimately in the court and at the same time earn the wrath of criminals. These days one has to protect his own self and cannot depend on others for this purpose. The ground for refusal of the licence to the petitioner is patently arbitrary and unreasonable. In a recent case of Sayed Mohd. Jafar Husain v. State of U. P. , 1992 S Cr D 81 (Writ No. 7437 of 1982 decided on 25-7-1991) Honble D. P. S. Chauhan, J. that in the village of the petitioner there are already five fire arms licences. The ground is extraneous to law. The petitioner is not a person falling in the prohibited category provided under Section 9 of the Act as he was not the person who has not completed the age of 21 years and was not a person convicted for any offence of violence or moral turpitude and was not a person required to execute a bond under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for keeping peace or for keeping a good behaviour. "


( 5 ) I am in respectful agreement with the view of law expressed by Honble D. P. S. Chauhan, J. in the case of Sayed Jafar Husain (supra) that a licence cannot be refused on extraneous considerations. In the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress, (1990) 61 Fac LR 75







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top