*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 20.09.2013

+

W.P.(C) 5959 of 2013

SAHIL KOHLI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Counsel for the Petitioner.

versus

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel,

GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM No.13137/2013 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

WP (C) No.5959/2013

The petitioner before this Court, who is a Doctor by profession,

applied for grant of a fire arm licence for his personal safety. The said

application was rejected vide order 26.12.2012, of the Licensing

Authority without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Being aggrieved from the rejection of his application, the petitioner

preferred an appeal before the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. After

hearing the petitioner through his counsel, the appeal was dismissed on

the ground that there was no specific threat to the petitioner’s life or

property, which would justify the grant of an arms license to him.

2013:DHC:4789

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner

contended before the Lieutenant Governor that sometimes the petitioner

has to visit patients very late in the night and, therefore, he had applied

for an arms licence for self-protection. This contention, however, did

not find favour with the Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved from

rejection of his appeal, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this

writ petition.

2. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in WP

(C) No.1631/2012 titled Vinod Kumar Vs. The State & Ors. decided on

9.9.2013. The application of the petitioner in that case, for grant of an

Arms Licence was rejected on an identical ground, i.e., he did not have

any specific threat. Allowing the writ petition, this Court inter alia held

as under:

“3.

The grant and refusal of licences for fire arms and

ammunition is governed, inter alia, by Sections 13 and 14 of

the Arms Act, 1959. To the extent they are relevant, the said

Sections read as under:-

“13. (2) On receipt of an application, the

licensing authority shall call for the report of the

officer in charge of the nearest police station on

that application, and such officer shall send his

report within the prescribed time.

(2A) The licensing authority, after such inquiry,

if any, as it may, consider necessary, and after

considering the report received under sub-

section(2), shall, subject to the other provisions of

this Chapter, by order in writing either grant the

license or refuse to grant the same.

Provided that where the officer in charge of the

nearest police station does not send his report on

the application within the prescribed time, the

licensing authority may, if it deem fit, make such

2013:DHC:4789

order, after the expiry of the prescribed time,

without further waiting for the report].

(3) The licensing authority shall grant-

(a) a license under section 3 where the license is

required-

(i) by a citizen of India in respect of a smooth

bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty

inches in length to be used for protection or sport

or in respect of muzzle loading gun to be used for

bona fide crop protection:

Provided that where having regard to the

circumstances of any case, the licensing authority

is satisfied that in muzzle loading gun will not be

sufficient for crop protection, the licensing

authority may grant a license in respect of any

other smooth bore gun a aforesaid for such

protection, or

(ii) In respect of a point 22 bore rifle or an air

rifle to be used for target practice by a member of

rifle

club

or rifle

association licensed

or

recognized by the Central Government ;

(b) a license under section 3 in any other case or

license under section 4, section 5, section 6,

section 10 or section 12, if the licensing authorit