SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 2673

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
VIRENDRA PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANR. – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

1. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Licensing) and the order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi (Appellate Authority) thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking grant of an Arms licence.

2. The petitioner had applied for obtaining a fire Arms licence. The application stated that the necessity for the weapon was ‘for personal safety (self protection)’.

3. The petitioner claims to be employed as a Project Manager in a private company, which is engaged in construction business.

4. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 10.05.2016 stating the following reasons:-

“1. You do not have any good reason for grant of an Arms license.

2. You do not have any specific threat.

3. In the report from Local Police, as required under Section 13(2) of Arms Act, 1959, your case has been returned to this office and the case is not recommended from their side.”

5. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Lt.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top