The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of granting a firearm licence for protection or sport, the requirement of 'good reason' for obtaining a license, and the restrictions on the licensing authority's discretion, emphasizing the principle of natural justice and reasonableness.

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.

1. Heard Sri Jai Shanker Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Since a simple legal issue is involved in the matter, the writ petition is being disposed of without calling for a counter affidavit at this stage.

3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 28.08.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad, by which his application for grant of firearm licence has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner could not substantiate any serious threat to his life or his family. The Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad has also made the same observations while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner on 16.08.2013.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for firearm licence on the ground of his personal safety and security. The Inspector of the concerned police station submitted the report to the respondent no.2, that the petitioner has no criminal history nor any criminal case has been registered against him. He submits that the impugned orders are illegal and liable to be set aside and as such, his application for grant of fire licence may be considered afresh.

5. However, Standing Counsel has tried to support the impugned order for the reasons stated therein.

6. The controversy involved in the present writ petition has been decided by this Court in Writ Petition No.16565 of 2012 (Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) connected with Writ Petition No.15883 of 2012 (Rajesh Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) on 25th July, 2012 and this Court examined in detail the provisions of the Act dealing with grant/refusal of firearm licence. The District Magistrate had rejected the applications filed by the petitioners for grant of firearm licence on the ground that they failed to specify any special threat to personal security and had also not disclosed extraordinary circumstances which may justify the necessity of keeping the firearm with them. The Court after examining Sections 13 and 14 of the Act observed as follows: -

"52. The grant or refusal of licence by licensing authority is not his absolute discretion but is further subjected to other provisions of Chapter III. It takes the Court to sub-section (3) of Section 13 and Section 14. Sub-section (3) of Section 13 obliges the licensing authority to grant a licence if the conditions contemplated therein exist and are satisfied. One of such contingencies is, where the person applying for grant of licence under Section 3 wants to possess or carry a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length. Here it refers to the kind of weapon which the applicant seeking licence intends to possess or carry. The second part of this clause, i.e., sub-section (3)(a)(i) is the user of such weapon. It must be either for protection or sport or in respect of muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide crop protection. There are three kinds of purposes and objectives provided; and one of it is protection. If an applicant seeks a licence in respect to a weapon, i.e., smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches of gun for protection, the licensing authority is obliged to grant such licence under Section 3 of Act, 1959. Similarly, if the aforesaid kind of weapon is required for sport the licensing authority is to grant it and it is mandatory. The third is a different kind of firearm, namely, a muzzle loading gun and if it is required for bona fide crop protection, the licence under Section 3 shall be granted. Proviso to sub-section (3)(a)(i) of Section 13 gives a discretion to licensing authority where the licence is required for bona fide crop protection, that instead of muzzle loading gun if he finds that it is not sufficient for crop protection, he may, in that case, grant licence in respect of any other smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than