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

2010 Supreme(All) 4364

2011 (86) ALR 106
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Anil Kumar,J.
Om Prakash
Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home & 2 Ors.
MISC. SINGLE No. - 2242 of 2006
Decided on : 22.12.2010

Advocates appeared:
K.N.Mishra
C.S.C.

The absence of genuineness of the need is not a ground for refusing a licence under Section 14 of the Arms Act 1959.

Headnote:

Arms Licence - Grant of Licence - Arms Act 1959, Section 3(2), Section 13, Section 14, Section 15 - The court discussed the provisions of the Arms Act 1959, including the limit on the number of firearms a person can possess, the procedure for grant of a licence, and the conditions for refusal of licences. The court emphasized the requirement for the licensing authority to provide adequate reasons for refusing a licence and highlighted the legal principle that the absence of genuineness of the need is not a ground for refusing a licence under Section 14 of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for a licence for N.P. Bore Rifle, which was rejected based on a report from the Superintendent of Police citing a criminal case and the petitioner's existing gun licence. The petitioner challenged the rejection, arguing that the orders were illegal and arbitrary.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's application was arbitrary and not supported by adequate reasons. The court emphasized the need for the licensing authority to provide valid reasons for refusal of a licence.

Issues: The issues involved the legality of the rejection of the petitioner's licence application and the requirement for the licensing authority to provide valid reasons for refusal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of genuineness of the need is not a ground for refusing a licence under Section 14 of the Arms Act 1959. The court emphasized the requirement for the licensing authority to provide valid reasons for refusal of a licence.

Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Licencing Authority to consider the grant of arms licence to the petitioner in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.

Heard Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 07.01.2006 (Annexure-2) passed by Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda rejecting the petitioner's appeal and order dated 23.02.2005 (Annexure-1) passed by District Magistrate, Gonda by which the petitioner's application for grant of licence for 315 Bore Rifle has been rejected.

2. In brief the facts of the present case are that the petitioner has applied for a licence of N.P. Bore Rifle in the year 1999, thereafter the O.P. No. 3/District Magistrate, Gonda/Licencing Authority called the report from the concerned police authority in order to consider the matter regarding grant of arm licence.

3. On 22.02.2005, Superintendent of Police, Gonda submitted a report against the petitioner stating therein that a criminal case No. 154 of 2000 under Section 147, 148, 149 307, 427 IPC has been registered in which the final report has been submitted by the police in the court of ACJM, 1st Gonda, and the same is under consideration. In the said report it is stated that the petitioner already possessed a licence in respect to SBBL 12 Bore Gun and he has a criminal history, so there is no justification or reason to grant another licence.

4. Taking into consideration the said report dated 22.02.2005 submitted by Superintendent of Police, Gonda, the Licencing Authority/District Magistrate, Gonda by order dated 23.02.2005 rejected the petitioners application for grant of licence for NP Bore Rifle, challenged by him before the Appellate Authority/Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, who dismissed the appeal on the ground that a criminal case against the petitioner is pending and he has already a SBBL Gun licence. Hence the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned orders dated 23.02.2005 and 07.01.2006 passed by O.P. Nos. 3 and 2 submitted that they are illegal and arbitrary in nature as the same have been passed on the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, Gonda dated 22.02.2005 without application of their own mind.

6. He further submits that in the criminal case registered against the petitioner, the police authority has already submitted the final report, so there is no justification or reason for not granting the licence in his favour.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner who has already a licence of SBBL Gun since the year 2002 thereafter renewed from time to time, so keeping the said facts and the provisions as provided under Section 15(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 13 of the Act, no good reasons or grounds exist on the part of the opposite parties not to grant second licence him in respect to the N.P. Bore Rifle rather the same is contrary to the mandatory provisions as provided under Section 3(2) of the Act by which a person can have three fire arms licences in his possession at any time. In order to support the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments (a) Sunil Shukla, Advocate Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [2010(I) JIC 232 (All)] (b) Wasim Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [2010 (2) JIC 585 (All)].

8. In view of the abovesaid facts, counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 23.02.2005 and 07.01.2006 are contrary to law and liable to be set aside.

9. Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that on the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of licence of N.P. Bore Rifle, the District Magistrate/Licencing Authority vide a letter dated 10.12.2002 called a report from Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Gonda and















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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