Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9911 of 2017 Petitioner :- Awadh Bihari Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeshwar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present petition has been filed to challenge the orders dated 02.06.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria/Licensing Authority, Deoria and 13.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur with an appeal arising from the order dated 2.6.2014.
3. By the order dated 2.6.2014, the licensing authority had rejected the application filed by the petitioner to be granted an arms license with respect to a revolver. Perusal of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria/Licensing Authority, Deoria and the appeal order reveals that the petitioner's application was rejected on the reasoning that he has not disclosed any ground or fact on which that application may be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired bank manager. He lives at Deoria with his wife while his two sons are residing and working outside Deoria. In such circumstances, the petitioner being a senior citizen felt need for fire-arm for his self-defence and the application to issue fire-arm license made by the petitioner has been wrongly rejected.
5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that possession of a fire-arm is not a fundamental right and in any case, neither the petitioner has any prior experience of use of a fire-arm nor he has disclosed any special fact or circumstance as may entitle him to use a fire-arm. Specially keeping in mind the status of the petitioner being that a senior citizen, he would submit that mere possession of the fire-arm may not lead to added or additional security for an individual citizen. In the first place, its need has to be established and in any case for the present petitioner to possess the same, he must be able bodied and also such as may be able to use it effectively and properly.
6. Referring to the application filed by the petitioner, it is further submitted by disclosing the fact that the fire-arm was required for self-defence, the petitioner did not specify any special fact or circumstance giving rise to such need. It has therefore been submitted that other than a bald assertion made by the petitioner expressing his need for a fire-arm, no justification was disclosed by him as may warrant grant of such license.
7. Having considered the argument so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that in the first place, possession of fire-arm and, therefore, issuance of a fire-arm license is not a fundamental right of the citizen. Such issue is strictly regulated by law. It was for the petitioner to have made out a special case for issue of such fire-arm license in accordance with law in that regard. Once the petitioner did not specify the special need felt by him for issuance of such fire- arm license, the authorities have not erred in rejecting such application. Moreover, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen and he has not disclosed any prior experience of use or handling of such fire-arm, there appears no error in the orders passed by the authorities below in rejecting such application.
8. However, rejection of the present writ petition would not amount to injunction against a proper or further application being filed by the petitioner, if such need arises.
9. The present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Prakhar