JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4.3.99 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1, the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, Banda whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 18.7.98 passed by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Hamirpur by which the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence was cancelled.
3. The case of the petitioner is that after completing all the formalities he had applied to respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Hamirpur for grant of fire-arm licence. When no decision was taken by him, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6577 of 1998 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 3.3.98 with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 3.3.98 respondent No. 2 after considering the report of the police and the report of the Lekhpal rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence vide order dated 18.7.98. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 18.7.98 he filed an appeal before respondent No. 1, the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal, Banda which was also dismissed vide order dated 4.3.99. Hence, this writ petition.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Arms Act read Rules, there is no provision to call for the report from the Revenue Officer or Lekhpal, therefore, the report relied upon by respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate is not relevant at all. He further submits that it has not been provided any where in the Arms Act or the Arms Rules with regard to the numbers of fire arm licence to be issued in any district or their ratio in comparison with the population of the district and the observation and reasoning of the Licensing authority which was based on the report of the Lekhpal that sufficient number of firearms licencee had already been issued in District Hamirpur is untenable and is vague, irrelevant for deciding the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence. It is further submitted that the observation made by the Licensing authority, the District Magistrate that the grant of fire-arm licence to the petitioner is not in the' public interest' is wholly vague and without basis.
5. The standing counsel submits that the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence has rightly been rejected by respondent No. 2 and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2.
6. From the record it appears that the Superintendent of Police in his report dated 16.7.98 stated that the petitioner had no criminal history and recommended for grant of arms licence but the District Magistrate relying upon the report of the Revenue officer rejected the application of the petitioner which is illegal and is not sustainable in the eye of law. While rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate relying upon the report of Lekhpal held that a large number of licences had already been issued in the city and since the petitioner has no enmity with any person, hence he cannot be granted arms licence. The District Magistrate as well as the Commissioner both have rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence on irrelevant consideration without application of mind.
7. A person has a right to protect his life and property. The petitioner has no criminal history and the Superintendent of Police had also recommended grant of arms licence to the petitioner. The petitioner had applied for arms licence as he must have felt insecure in a place where large number of arms licence have already been granted by the District Magistrate. There is nothing in antecedents of the petitioner verified by the police which may debar the petitioner from grant of arms licence.
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 4.3.99 and 18.7.98 are quashed. The petitioner may move a fresh application for grant of arms licence before respondent No. 2 in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment.