Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. With the consent of the parties' counsel, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at admission stage.
The petitioner has applied for grant of arm licence which has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Lucknow by the impugned order dated 26.11.2010. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order was also dismissed by the appellate authority, i.e. the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that while moving application for grant of arm licence in the column relating to special reason, the petitioner had not pointed out with regard to the person from whom he is suffering from threat perception.
Arm licence is granted not only in the event of threat perception from certain person but it may be granted with the possible threat perception. In case a person's status, nature of job, movement and social life is such that he can be assaulted by some one or he may suffer untoward incident from anti-sicial elements, then in such a situation, he or she shall be entitled for grant of arm licence. It is not necessary that while moving application, the citizen should indicate the name of the person from whom he/she may suffer injury. Indication of such fact or the name of the person from whom, the citizen may suffer injury shall amount to invite trouble and direct conflict with anti-social elements. We may take judicial notice of the fact that the crime in the society is rising day to day and the police has been failed to provide reasonable protection to citizens. It is not necessary that life and liberty of every citizen may be secured by the police. Accordingly, in absence of guaranteed social security or security of life and liberty of the citizen, the citizen may move application for grant of arm licence. Statutory right conferred by the Arms Act cannot be taken away on flimsy ground or on presumption . Unless a citizen has got some bad antecedent or there is possibility with regard to involvement in crime or abuse of weapon, the arm licence should not be refused more so when the government is not in a position to provide security to the citizens on individual basis. Thus, the reason assigned by the District Magistrate refusing the grant of licence does not seem to be sustainable and suffers from vice of arbitrariness. The appellate authority has decided the appeal mechanically by reiterating the finding recorded by the District Magistrate and has not applied his mind with regard to justifiability of the order passed by the Collector rejecting the petitioner's application.
During the course of argument, it has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the police as well as the tehsil authorities have submitted a report in the petitioner's favour. In case it is so, then the impugned order suffers from serious perversity. In the event of dissenting view, it was incumbent on the District Magistrate to record reasons or point out the difference of opinion with the report submitted by the police and tehsil authorities. It appears that it has not been done in the present case. Hence, on this ground also, the decision suffers from vice of arbitrariness.
In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned orders dated 8.6.2011 and 26.11.2010 (Annexures 1 and 2) with consequential benefits. The District Magistrate/Collector, Lucknow is directed to re-consider the petitioner's case for grant of arm licence and if necessary after inviting fresh report from the police authorities. Let necessary exercise be done within a period of four months from the date of service of certified copy of the present order.
Order Date :- 10.2.2012 kkb/