# Deena Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 882 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-07-19 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63419 of 2011 - **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deena-nath-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41992 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Arms Act, 1959-Section-14-Rejection of application for non prohibited fire armon ground name of enemy not shownsuch ground not available under statutory provision under Section 14order can not survive Held: Para 8 The reasons given in the impugned order for refusing the licence to the petitioner are not covered by any of the grounds given in section 14 of the Act on which the licence may be refused. In my opinion the respondent no. 2 failed to consider and decide the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence keeping in view the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and rejected the petitioner's application arbitrarily which has rendered his order totally unsustainable. Case law discussed: AIR 1982 All. 283 ## Text 882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 have effective means of their personal safety is of utmost importance. Possession of firearm, therefore, should be a normal condition unless shown otherwise. This ought to be the approach of competent authority under Arms Act while granting license for firearm or renewing or allowing it to continue. 12. Unfortunately, that is not so. The matter of firearm is being dealt with by respondents in a very fanciful and strange manner having no reasonable nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. I really failed to understand as to why the Commissioner could not consider the matter in correct perspective while deciding appeal of the petitioner after decision of Court in criminal case no.849 of 2008 (Case Crime No.400/07). This has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, inasmuch as, he has been put in a serious peril and his life have been endangered by depriving him of possession of a firearm on unsustainable reasons. 13. The writ petition, in view of above discussion, is allowed. The impugned orders dated 08.07.2008 passed by Addl. District Magistrate (Administration), Aligarh and 05.05.2010 passed by Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh (Annexures No.2 and 5 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs.25,000/-. 14. However, the State of U.P. shall be at liberty to recover the amount of cost from the official(s) concerned, who had passed the impugned orders without application of mind; after making such enquiry, as is permissible in law. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63419 of 2011 Deena Nath Pandey ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. Thru' Secy. Home and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Narendra Deo Upadhyay Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Arms Act, 1959-Section-14-Rejection of application for non prohibited fire armon ground name of enemy not shownsuch ground not available under statutory provision under Section 14order can not survive Held: Para 8 The reasons given in the impugned order for refusing the licence to the petitioner are not covered by any of the grounds given in section 14 of the Act on which the licence may be refused. In my opinion the respondent no. 2 failed to consider and decide the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence keeping in view the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and rejected the petitioner's application arbitrarily which has rendered his order totally unsustainable. Case law discussed: AIR 1982 All. 283 (Delivered by Hon'ble B.K. Narayana,J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2 All] Deena Nath Pandey V. State of U.P. and others 883 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 20.8.2008 (annexure no. 7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 4, Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and 28.8.2007 (annexure no. 5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, Ghazipur. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that that the petitioner applied for grant of firearm license under the Arms Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the respondent no. 2 in the year 2005. On receipt of the petitioner's application the licensing authority called for the report of officer-in-charge of the police station Kotwali Saidpur. The officer-in-charge submitted his report before the respondent no. 2 recommended against grant of licence to the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 vide impugned order dated 28.8.2007 rejected the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence on the grounds inter-alia that he had no enemies, there was no special requirement of the petitioner to possess a firearm licence and that his need was not genuine. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds on which the licensing authority can refuse to grant licence have been laid down in Section 14 of the Arms Act and the licensing authority refusing the licence is bound to give reasons which in view of Section 14 of the Arms Act could only be any one or more of those enumerated in that section and since respondent no. 2 has refused to grant fire arm licence to the petitioner on grounds which are not enumerated in Section 14 of the Act, the order rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of licence is not sustainable at all. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan Vs. State reported in AIR 1982 All. 283. 5. He further submitted that the failure of the respondent no. 4 to redeem the illegality committed by the respondent no. 2 in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the respondent no. 2 has vitiated his order as well. 6. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondent no. 2 has given cogent reasons for rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence and the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting any interference by this Court under Article 226 of he Constitution of India. 7. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Section 14 of the Arms Act which enumerates the grounds on which the licensing authority can refuse the grant of licence reads as under:- (1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant- (a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition; (b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,- 884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe- (1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or (2) to be of unsound mind, or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. (2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement. 8. This Court in the case of Ram Khelawan Misra (Supra) considered the grounds on which the licensing authority could refuse the licence under the Arms Act and held as under:- "A rifle not being a smooth bore gun when a person seeks a licence for the former the licensing authority has to be satisfied that he has a good reason to obtain it. Section 14 lays down grounds for refusal of the licence. The licensing authority refusing the licence is bound to give reasons, which in view of Sec. 14, could only be any one or more of those enumerated in that section. Refusal on a ground not found in that provision would be illegal." A perusal of the order of respondent no. 2 shows that the grounds on which he refused the licence to the petitioner are that he had no enemies, that there was no special requirement of petitioner to possess a fire arm licence and that his need was not genuine. The reasons given in the impugned order for refusing the licence to the petitioner are not covered by any of the grounds given in section 14 of the Act on which the licence may be refused. I0.00"n my opinion the respondent no. 2 failed to consider and decide the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence keeping in view the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and rejected the petitioner's application arbitrarily which has rendered his order totally unsustainable. 9. Since the respondent no. 4 also fell into the same error in dismissing the petitioner's appeal preferred by him against the order of the respondent no. 2, his order also cannot be sustained. 10. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned orders dated 28.8.2007 and 20.8.2008 passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 4 respectively (annexure nos. 5 and 7 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 11. Respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, Ghazipur is directed to reconsider and decide the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence strictly in accordance with law keeping the 2 All] Deepa Ram V. State of U.P. and others 885 view of provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order before him. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55366 of 2009 Deepa Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri O. P. Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226Pension-Petitioner working as Seasonal Collection Peon-substantively appointed on 29.11.96-after retirement on 31.12.2007-claimed his initial appointment of seasonal be also counted for Qualifying period of pension-held-can not be accepted. Held: Para 4 In the circumstances, the claim of petitioner to count his service as Seasonal Collection Peon towards pension cannot be accepted since it is de-hors the rules. Case law discussed: 2006(1) ESC 611; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14286 of 2008 (Smt. Ramwati Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 26.11.2010; 2006 (8) ADJ 371; 1989 ACJ 337 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) 1. List revised. None appeared. I have perused the record. 2. Petitioner was working as Seasonal Collection Peon. He was made substantive on 29.11.1996 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2007. The case of the petitioner is that service rendered by him as seasonal Collection Amin since 20.11.1981 should be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Reliance is placed on Division Bench judgment of this Court in Board of Revenue & ors Vs. Prasidh Narain Upadhyay 2006 (1) ESC 611. 3. In my view, the submission is thoroughly misconceived. The service rendered as Seasonal Collection Peon does not qualify for pension. No provision has been shown in this regard. In Prasidh Narain Upadhyay (supra), the Division Bench has recorded a clear and categorical finding rejecting the contention of State Government that incumbent was working as Seasonal Collection Peon and on the contrary this Court held that he was actually appointed as Collection Peon on temporary basis. A temporary appointment followed by substantive (permanent) appointment qualify for pension. That was not a case where incumbent was working as Seasonal Collection Peon. This was the case set up by State Government but not accepted by this Court. This distinction has been pointed out by this Court later on in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14286 of 2008 (Smt. Ramwati Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 26.11.2010, wherein this Court said as under: