Point of Law : Perverse or an illegal decision of the authority can be judicially reviewed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner applied for a fire arms license by applications dated 03.07.2020 and 07.06.2021.

2. By the impugned order dated 05.07.2021 the licensing authority/ District Mainpuri has declined to grant the arms license to the petitioner.

3. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the denial of the arms license to the petitioner on the footing that the petitioner does not faces any imminent threat to his life is arbitrary and illegal. He relied on various judgments rendered by this Court in Arvind Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others reported at 2012 76 ACC 457, Ram Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another reported at 2010 (69) ACC 490; Brij Nandan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported at 2011 (75) ACC 331 and also the judgments rendered by this Court on 21.05.2019 in Bhoore Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another Writ C No. 17507 of 2019, judgment rendered on 23.05.2019 in Indal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another Writ C No. 17833 of 2019 and the judgment of this Court rendered on 07.12.2019 in Kammod Vs. State of U.P and other Writ C No. 39541 of 2019.

4. Per contra learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Sri J.P.N Raj, submits that the petitioner did not satisfy the criteria for grant of arms license as laid down in the Government Order dated 08.11.2018. It is further contended that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been rendered by various Single Judges’ of this Court. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is contrary to the law laid down by learned Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Mahipat Singh reported at 2014 (2) ADJ 134. The judgment of the learned Division Bench was not referred to the learned Single Judges’ in Bhoore Singh (supra), Kammod Singh (supra) and Indal Singh (supra). Applicable provisions of the Arms Act and Arms Rules as well as the Government Order dated 08.11.2018 have not been considered in the judgments cited in support of the petitioner’s case.

The said judgments rendered by the learned Single Judges’ are per incuriam.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. To process the application for grant of firearm license submitted by the petitioner, reports were called for by the licensing authority from the relevant government departments, namely, the revenue and the police authorities The said reports are extracted in the impugned order dated 05.07.2021.

7. The report submitted by the S.D.M., Karhal, dated 27.1.2021 records that the applicant is not victim of a crime, a trader, an industrialist, a serviceman, a member of paramilitary forces, a MLA, a MLC, a MP or an Enforcement Officer. The report on behalf of the police authorities submitted by the Inspector In-charge of Police Station, Karhal on 27.01.2021 asserts that no criminal case has been registered against the applicant Rajat Yadav. Analysing the threat perception to the applicant Rajat Yadav, the said police report opined that the applicant does not face any threat to life or property from any individual. The applicant does not have a genuine requirement for possession of a firearm. The report of the Inspector of the concerned police station was duly approved by the C.O, Karhal, in his report dated 08.02.2021. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri also accorded approval to the report submitted by the S.H.O and the C.O.

8. After agreeing with the reports submitted by various police functionaries, the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri made the recommendation that the applicant was not entitled for grant of arms license.

9. The eligibility of the petitioner for grant of arms license was examined in the light of enquiry reports submitted by various competent authorities in the impugned order dated 05.07.2021. The petitioner did not fall in various categories of individuals entitled for grant of license by virtue of hold