Administrative authorities exercising discretionary licensing powers must adhere strictly to statutory timelines and record clear, reasoned findings for decisions. Failure to provide a speaking order or address procedural hurdles, such as limitation, violates the rule of law and constitutes an unsustainable exercise of authority.

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the respondent no.2, Additional Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 24.11.2022, passed by the District Magistrate, rejecting the petitioner's application for the grant of arms license, has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a law- abiding citizen and has deep roots in the society. The petitioner is engaged in the business of selling gold ornaments, which exposes him to potential threats. It is further submitted that the petitioner had applied for a grant of an arms license in 2018. The said application was rejected by the District Magistrate, Bhadohi, vide order dated 24.11.2022, without due consideration of relevant materials. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has also been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur, without assigning cogent or reasoned findings, thereby rendering the impugned order non-speaking and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

4. It is further contended that the petitioner has been facing persistent threats to his safety. As regards the criminal antecedents, it is submitted that out of the five cases shown against the petitioner, the petitioner has already been acquitted in four cases, and only one case is stated to be pending, which, by itself, cannot be a ground for rejection of the license.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has a criminal history of five cases; although acquittal has been recorded in two cases, in one case the final report has not been accepted by the competent court, and two cases are still pending trial. It is thus contended that the antecedents of the petitioner were duly considered by the competent authority while rejecting the application.

6. From perusal of record, it transpires that Rule 13 of Arms Rule, 2016 suggests that the licensing authority, after considering the application and on being satisfied that the applicant has fulfilled the eligibility conditions, shall grant or refuse to grant a license for permissible category of arms or ammunition specified in category III of Schedule I, to any person by recording in writing the reasons for such grant or refusal, by passing a speaking order, within a period of sixty days of the receipt of the police report. Rule 14 states that on receipt of an application for grant of a license under sub-rule (1) of rule 13 or every subsequent renewal thereof under Section 15 of the Arms Act, the licensing authority shall call for a report of the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station on that application, and such officer shall send his report in Form S-4, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application by him.

7. In the present case, it is evident that the petitioner's application was submitted in the year 2018, and the police report was forwarded on 24.09.2018 by the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi, which was available on record. The report of the revenue authorities was also submitted in favour of the petitioner. However, the application was rejected by the District Magistrate on 24.11.2022, i.e., after an inordinate and unexplained delay of almo