Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37026 of 2018 Petitioner :- Muhammad Soharab Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Riyajuddin Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been directed against the order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur by which the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur (rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of fire arm license), has been rejected.
3. The petitioner made an application for grant of fire arm license on 08.07.2011. It is his case that on 28.08.2011, the local police had made a favourable recommendation for grant of fire arm license to the petitioner. However, being antagonised by the fact in the meantime, the petitioner approached this Court for expeditious disposal of his application, the respondents obtained a further report from the police which was though adverse to the petitioner was not founded on fact or circumstance. Acting on the second report, the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm license was rejected. Thereafter, facts have been pleaded to indicate that the petitioner filed an appeal which was time barred and therefore rejected.
4. This Court in an earlier writ petition condoned the delay and directed the appeal to be decided on merits. Upon that order, the appeal authority remanded the matter to the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur who on the second occasion again rejected the application. The appeal there from has been rejected and therefore the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the good character of the petitioner was certified by the S.S.P., Gorakhpur as also by Gram pradhan and that there does not exist any adverse material as may justify the rejection of the fire arm license. It has been further submitted with great vehemence that the real ground for the rejection of the fire arm license is the fact that the respondents have got antagonised by the action taken by the petitioner in approaching this Court for his earlier grievances.
6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the application for grant of fire arm license was rightly rejected inasmuch as no good ground has been given by the petitioner for it's grant. Alternatively, it has been submitted in the meanwhile Arms Rules, 2016 has been enforced, the petitioner is required to comply with those Rules. No application under old Rules could have been allowed after enforcement of the Arms Rules, 2016.
7. Perusal of the order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur indicates that the application has been rejected relying on the report of the police as also for the reason that no need was found to have been established by the petitioner for such license.
8. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the orders, it appears that there is no reason recorded in the impugned orders as may entitle a positive disqualification to the petitioner to obtain a fire arm license. Even, the police report preferred to does not record pendency of any criminal record against the petitioner. A wholly subjective opinion has been taken cognizance of, which opinion itself does not appear to be founded on any real or existing fact.
9. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. However, no useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter to the authorities since in view of the Arms Rules, 2016 having came into fore. The petitioner would be required to comply with the same before any license can be issued to him today.
10. Accordingly, it is provided, subject to the petitioner filing a fresh application for issuance of fire arm license within a period of three weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order, it is expected that the application so filed by the petitioner would be decided strictly within the time limits provided under the Arms Rules, 2016 without being influenced by the fact that the earlier application filed by the petitioner had been rejected. Fresh decision may be made on its own merit on the application to be made by the petitioner.
11. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Abhilash