ORDER

1. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity, legality and propriety of the order dated 5.7.2017 (Annexure P/3) passed by the respondent No.1; whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of arms licence under section 14 (1) (b) (ii) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been rejected without passing any speaking order.

3. For the purpose of convenience, the impugned order dated 5.7.2017 (Annexure P/3) is reproduced below:

e/; çns'k 'kklu

x`g foHkkx

ea=ky;] oYyHk Hkou] Hkksiky

vkns'k

Hkksiky] fnukad 5-7-2017

Øekad ,QŒ 16&212@2016@ch&1@nks&Jherh vkdka{kk flag iRuh Jh dqynhi] fuoklh dysDVj caxyk ds ihNs] ftyk Nrjiqj dks ,d voftZr cksj fiLVy@fjokYoj 'kL= yk;lsal lgefr ckor ÁLrko dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA vkosnd dks fdlh O;fDr@lewg fo'ks"k ls [krjk ugha gksus ls 'kklu dh uohu 'kL= uhfr ds varxZr ik=rk ugha vkrh gSA vr,o vk;q/k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14¼1½] [k¼2½ ds rgr ÁLrko vkSfpR;iw.kZ ,oa lek/kkudkjd u ik;s tkus ds QyLo:i iw.kZ fopkjksijkar vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA

2- Hkkjr ljdkj ds jkti= ljy Øekad 373] fnukad 24-07-2012 esa Ádkf'kr x`g ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk Øekad lkŒdkŒfuŒ 585 ¼v½ fnukad 24 tqykbZ] 2012 ds vuqlkj vfuok;Zr% ,uŒMhŒ,Œ,yŒ dk mi;ksx dj] ,Iyhds'ku vk;ŒMhŒ UkEcj tujsV djus ds ckn gh 'kL= yk;lsal ds vekU; ds vkns'k tkjh djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA

e/; Áns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls

rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj

¼Jh nkl½

voj lfpo

eŒÁŒ 'kklu] x`g foHkkx

i`Œ ØŒ ,QŒ 16&212@2016@ch&1@nks] Hkksiky] fnukad 5-7-2017

Áfrfyfi%&

1- vk;qDr] lkxj laHkkx] lkxj dh vksj mud¢ i= Øekad 257@'kk[kk nks&1@2016] fnukad 23-02-2016 ds lanHkZ esa] lwpukFkZA

2- ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] ftyk Nrjiqj dh vksj muds Kkiu Øekad 55@'kL= 2016 fnukad 19-1-2016 ds lanHkZ esa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq Ásf"krA

3- fo'ks"k drZO;LFk vf/kdkjh] ekuuh; ea=h ¼x`g½ eŒÁŒ Hkksiky dh vksj lwpukFkZA

4- Jherh vkdka{kk flag iRuh Jh dqynhi] fuoklh dysDVj caxyk d¢ ihNs] ftyk Nrjiqj dh vksj lwpukFkZA

5- xkMZ QkbZyA

voj lfpo

eŒÁŒ 'kklu] x`g foHkkx

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a business woman running a College through registered Society and other business at Chhatarpur. Petitioner’s husband is also a Colonizer. Petitioner applied for issuance of Arms Licence “Pistol” in July, 2015 for protection of her property and person as having endanger of life from certain influential persons. Since no action was being taken, the petitioner made complaint through CM-Helpline on 21.2.2017, but to no avail. Thereafter vide order dated 5.7.2017 (Annexure P/3) respondent No.1 rejected her application in a very cryptic manner without passing speaking order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily placed reliance on the provisions of section 14 of the Act, wherein the reasons for refusal of the arms licence has been specified. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the reasons have been specified in the order impugned and the same is contrary to the provisions of law, which is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that after due process of law, petitioner’s case had been referred to the competent authority for grant of licence and competent authority after considering the report submitted by the authorities and as per the provisions of Arms Act has found that petitioner is not entitled for licence. On reading of the impugned order also, it is crystal clear that the competent authority has rightly passed the impugned order pursuing no threat to the petitioner. Moreover, grant of arms licence is not a fundamental right of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, which is relevant for the purpose of this case is reproduced herein below:

“14. Refusal of licences.-(1)

Notwithstanding anything in section 1