Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Considering the pure legal submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel states that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit and the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage under the Rules of this Court.

3. It is contended that fire-arm licence was applied by petitioner which has been declined by District Magistrate on the ground that petitioner did not prove by adducing adequate evidence that his life and liberty is endangered and if so by whom. That order has been confirmed in appeal.

4. It is contended that unless otherwise shown, every person is entitled to take care of his safety and security particularly when efficiency of State Police to provide adequate security is quite doubtful considering the total number of population vis a vis police personnel. Here both the authorities have rejected petitioner’s application on a non-est ground. The orders are based on conjecture and surmises.

5. Learned Standing Counsel having gone through the impugned order could not support the impugned orders.

6. This Court in Pawan Kumar Jha v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(10) ADJ 782, has held that undue restriction on keeping and bearing arms ought not be based on unfounded fear. Licence is normally to be granted unless there is something adverse.

7. A fire-arm licence cannot be denied only on conjectures and surmises and without appreciating the objective of statute under which the power is being exercised. Right to life and liberty which includes within its ambit right of security and safety of a person and taking, adopting and pursuing such means as are necessary for such safety and security, is a fundamental right of every person. Keeping a fire-arm for the purpose of personal safety and security is a mode and manner of protection of oneself and enjoyment of fundamental right of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the interest of maintenance of law and order certain reasonable restrictions have been imposed on such right but that would not make the fundamental right itself to be dependant on the vagaries of executive authorities. It is not a kind of privilege being granted by Government to individual but only to the extent where grant of fire-arm licence to an individual would demonstratively prejudice or adversely affect the maintenance of law and order including peace and tranquility in the society, ordinarily such right shall not be denied. It is in these circumstances, this Court has observed that grant of fire-arm licence ordinarily be an action and denial an exception. In Vinod Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. and others, (Writ Petition No. 38645 of 2011), decided on 15.7.2011 this Court has said:

“When a fire-arm licence is granted for personal safety and security it does not mean that in the family consisting of several persons only one fire-arm licence is to be granted. Moreover, this cannot be a reason for denial of arm licence. Fire-arm licence can be denied only if the reason assigned by applicant or details given by him in application are not found to be correct but merely because there are one fire-arm licence already possessed by one of the family member, the same cannot be denied. Grant of fire-arm licence should ordinarily be an action and denial should be an exception. The approach of authorities below is clearly arbitrary and illegal. It also lacks purpose and objective of the statute.”

8. The authorities empowered to grant licence under the Act ought not to behave as if they are part of the old British sovereignty and the applicant is a pity subject whose every demand deserved to be crushed on one or the other pretext. The requirement of an Indian citizen governed by rule of law under the Indian Constitution deserved to be considered with greater respect and honour. The authorities thus shall have considered