# Brajesh Chandra Awasthi v. State of U.P. Thru Chief Secy. and others - **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1376 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-11-16 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65322 of 2011 - **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brajesh-chandra-awasthi-v-state-of-u-p-thru-chief-secy-and-others-42024 - **Pages:** 2 ## Text 1376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 for decision on merits in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the Collector. 11. The writ petition is allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65322 of 2011 Brajesh Chandra Awasthi ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. Thru Chief Secy. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Jyotish Awasthi Sri Prabhakar Dubey Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Arms Act-Section13-Grant of fire arm license-petitioner a Practicing Advocatealready possess 315 bore rifle-no material placed either before authority or before writ court-justifying need of another fire Arm-and relied-No Prohibition of Second License-but not as a matter of right-case law cited already overruled by Full Benchreally unfortunate. Held: Para 5 The decisions cited before this Court only stress upon that there is no prohibition under the statute for possessing more than one firearm licence by a person. Lack of prohibition and entitlement of a person to claim more than one firearm licence are two different things. Though there is no prohibition and a person in a given circumstance may be allowed more than one firearm licence but that is not a matter of right and not also as a matter of course. Case law discussed: 2002(1) SCC 633; AIR 1993 Alld 291; 2010 (1) ACR 417; 2010(1) ACR 1078; 1995 (1) All CJ 200 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. ) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by District Magistrate, Etawah rejecting petitioner's application for grant of firearm licence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that petitioner is an Advocate and also a political activist. He does not dispute that he already possess a firearm licence whereupon he possess 315 bore rifle but contends that under law a person can have three firearm licences and, therefore, the authorities below have committed patent error by depriving and denying firearm licence to petitioner only on the ground that petitioner already possessed a firearm licence and weapon with him. He placed reliance on Apex Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others, 2002(1) SCC 633 and contended that where a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner, the power has to be exercised only in that manner and not otherwise. He also placed reliance on this Court's decisions in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt Vs. District Magistrate, Almora, AIR 1993 Alld 291; Sunil Shukla, Advocate Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010(1) ACR 417; and, Ram Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2010(1) ACR 1078. 4. In my view none of the aforesaid decisions have application to the facts of 3 All] Prahlad Singh V. State of U.P. and others 1377 this case. It is no doubt true that a person may have more than one firearm licence under statute but that does not mean that the authorities are under statutory obligation to allow a firearm licence application as and when submitted by a person who already possessed a firearm, to grant the same as a matter of right without considering other relevant circumstances. A firearm licence is not a matter of right but a privilege which can be allowed in the manner provided in statute. When a firearm licence is applied for personal safety and security, it is incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate that in case of denial of firearm licence his life and liberty would be endangered. In the case in hand, petitioner already possessed a firearm licence and has not placed anything on record to show that the same is not sufficient for his protection and safety. In absence of anything placed on record by petitioner himself to justify his application for second firearm licence, I do not find any illegality on the part of respondents in rejecting petitioner's application. 5. The decisions cited before this Court only stress upon that there is no prohibition under the statute for possessing more than one firearm licence by a person. Lack of prohibition and entitlement of a person to claim more than one firearm licence are two different things. Though there is no prohibition and a person in a given circumstance may be allowed more than one firearm licence but that is not a matter of right and not also as a matter of course. 6. So far as judgment cited before this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (supra) is concerned, nothing has been shown that procedure prescribed in law has not been followed by authorities. The judgment of this Court in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt (supra), cited by learned counsel for the petitioner has been overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1995 (1) All CJ 200, as is evident from following extract of judgment of Full Bench: "We are thus, again constrained to hold that both Ganesh Chandra Bhatt's case 1993 (30) ACC 204 as also Devendra Pratap Singh's case Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 29963 of 1993, D/- 7-10-1993, do not lay down correct law and are consequently hereby over-ruled." 7. It is really strange that learned counsel canvassing case of an Advocate client has cited an authority which has already been overruled. This is really unfortunate. 8. However, in view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65576 of 2011 Prahlad Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.N. Verma Sri Havaldar Verma Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S. Shekhar C.S.C.