# Gyanendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 470
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-03
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 10887 of 2015
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gyanendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49606
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Fire Arm Licence - Self defence and
Security of property - Authorities rejected
the claim for granting licence - Finding of
fact - Scope of interference - Held, right
to own a fire arm is not a Fundamental
Right in India - There is no right to have
an arms licence which is a privilege and it
is a question of fact which is to be
ascertained by the authorities concerned
whether a person is entitled to the said
privilege or not and no interference with
such factual findings is possible in writ
jurisdiction. (Para 13 and 16)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on 24.12.2020. However, the punishment
order had been withdrawn on 6.4.2022 after
the issuance of contempt notices but no
such application was filed immediately.

25. Therefore, in view of the facts and
circumstances of the issue in question and
also having regard to the orders being
passed by this Court and the dictum of Full
Bench in re: Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi
(supra), I do not find any good ground to
grant leave to the State authorities /
disciplinary authority to pass final order in
the disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner as the aforesaid application is not
only misconceived but also the same has
been filed in a sheer illegal, arbitrary,
unwarranted manner and in a gross
disobedience of the direction of this Court,
besides, the manner under which this
application has been filed may not be
appreciated as it clearly appears that the
aforesaid application is misuse of the
process of the law, so the application is
liable to be dismissed.

26. Accordingly, the application is
dismissed.

27. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 470
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-C No. 10887 of 2015

Gyanendra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.M. Ali, Sri Om Prakash Tripathi, Sri Neelabh
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Fire Arm Licence - Self defence and
Security of property - Authorities rejected
the claim for granting licence - Finding of
fact - Scope of interference - Held, right
to own a fire arm is not a Fundamental
Right in India - There is no right to have
an arms licence which is a privilege and it
is a question of fact which is to be
ascertained by the authorities concerned
whether a person is entitled to the said
privilege or not and no interference with
such factual findings is possible in writ
jurisdiction. (Para 13 and 16)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs St. of U.P. through
Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow & ors.; 2023
(0) Supreme (All) 487

2. Writ C No. 24708 of 2021; Ram Milan Vs St.
of U.P. & ors. decided on 05.10.2021

3. SLP (Crl.) No. 12831/2022; Rajendra Singh Vs
The St. of U. P.decided on 13.02.2023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Neelabh Srivastava,
Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Om Prakash
Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent-State.

2. The present petition has been filed
inter-alia with the prayer to quash the
impugned order dated 11.12.2014 and order
dated 31.01.2014 passed by Commissioner
Jhansi
Division
Jhansi
and
District
Magistrate Jhansi respectively. Further
prayer is made to direct the respondents for
12 All. Gyanendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
471
grant of fire arm licence of pistol in favour
of the petitioner within time bound period.
By the aforesaid orders the application for
grant of fire-arm license of pistol in favour
of the petitioner was rejected.

3. The facts in brief as contained in
the writ petition are that petitioner has filed
an application on 10.07.2012 for granting
the fire-arm license in his favour for self
defence
and
safety.
The
District
Government Hospital issued a medical
fitness certificate dated 15.10.2012 after
medical examination of the petitioner. He
has also submitted medical fitness and
domicile certificate. The Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Jhansi and Superintendent of
Police, Jhansi have also submitted report on
22.12.2012 and 05.04.2013 in favour of the
petitioner. Since time limit prescribed in the
Act for grant of fire arm licence was
expired and no order was passed on the said
application, the petitioner preferred a petition
before this Court being Writ C No.61262 of
2013, which was disposed of by this Court
vide judgement and order dated 08.11.2013
directing the respondent no.2 in that petition
to consider and decide the petitioner's
application by a reasoned and speaking order
within three months. Pursuant to the same, a
decision was taken by the District Magistrate,
Jhansi on 31.01.2014 by which application
for grant of fire-arm license was rejected.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid appeal was
filed by the petitioner before the appellate
authority as provided under Section 18 of the
Arms Act, 1959. The said appeal was also
rejected by the Commissioner, Jhansi Region,
Jhansi vide its order dated December 11,
2014. Aggrieved against the aforesaid
petitioner has preferred present writ petition.

4. It is argued by counsel for the
petitioner that both the orders passed by the
authorities are absolutely illegal and liable
to be set aside. It is further argued that
petitioner have no criminal history. The
petitioner is a Practicing Advocate in
District Court Jhansi since 2008 and since
he is doing social work of public interest
hence an urgent need of fire-arm license for
the safety of his life and property. Counsel
for the petitioner placed reliance upon the
law laid down by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar
Yadav Vs. State of U.P. through Addl.
Chief Secy. Home Lucknow & Ors passed
in Writ C No.16298 of 2021 decided on
13.02.2023 reported in 2023 (0) Supreme
(All) 487.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the
learned Standing Counsel it is stated in
paragraph-5 that after the application for
grant of fire-arm license was submitted by
the petitioner, a report was submitted by the
S.S.P., Jhansi on 05.04.2013 making
objections to grant fire-arm license to the
petitioner. During the pendency of the
aforesaid report, writ petition in question as
stated above has been filed by the petitioner
in which direction was given by this Court
on 08.11.2013 to the competent authority to
disposed of the application for grant of firearm license of the petitioner within three
months. After the aforesaid order was
served the District Magistrate, Jhansi came
to the conclusion that there is no threat to
the life of petitioner, hence his application
was rejected. It is further stated that the
appeal filed against the aforesaid order was
rightly rejected by the Commissioner,
Jhansi after hearing both the parties. It is
further stated in the counter affidavit that
petitioner is Practicing Advocate and he has
no criminal history and as such he does not
required any fire-arm license.

6. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by
the petitioner it is stated that the petitioner
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is seeking fire-arm license for self defence
and safety. Certain reports were submitted
in his favour by the authorities concerned
but wholly illegally the District Magistrate
rejected the application for grant of firearm license hence order passed by the
authorities are liable to be quashed and the
petition is liable to be allowed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, the present petition
is disposed of finally at the admission
stage.

8. A perusal of the order impugned
passed by the District Magistrate, Jhansi
and also the Appellate order passed by the
Commissioner
Jhansi
Division
Jhansi
would show that the proper and and due
consideration has been afforded to the
various facts which has been placed by the
petitioner. The Licensing Authority has
observed that the primary reason on which
the Petitioner seeks an arms license is on
the ground of self defense and for safety of
his property which clear from the affidavit
filed by the petitioner for grant of the arm
license. The relevant portion of the affidavit
is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"समक्ष श्रीमाि् नजिा मनजस्रेट महोदय झाूँसी सन्दभा - शस्त्र
िाईसेन्स स्वीकृत नकये जािे हेतु आवेदि के सम्बन्ि में शपथ पत्र
शपथ पत्र

धारा 12. शपथ कताा को शास्त्र िाइसेंस की आवश्यकता
का कारण जाि माि की सुरक्षा हेतु "

9. The Licensing Authority namely
District Magistrate Jhansi has observed in
its order that there is no sufficient reason or
condition mentioned in the application to
grant arms license and rejected the
application. The relevant portion of the
order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

मैंने पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध समस्त अड़भलेखों का भली
भांड़त अध्ययन ड़कया। वररष्ठ पुड़लस अधीक्षक, झांसी एवं उप
ड़जला मड़जस्रेंट, झांसी द्वारा भी अपनी जांच आख्याओं में ऐसा
कोई तथ्य संज्ञान में नहीं लाया िया ड़जससे आवेदक को जीवन
भय के ड़लये कोई खतरा हो और आवेदक द्वारा अपने प्राथटना
पत्र में जान माल की सुरक्षा हेतु कोई ठोस कारण अंड़कत नहीं
ड़कया िया है और न ही कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत ड़कया है। आवेदक
की सुरक्षा सम्बन्धी ड़कसी ड़वड़शष्ट समस्या या पररड़स्थड़त सम्बन्धी
औड़चत्य का आख्याओं में कोई उल्लेख नहीं है। याची अपराध
पीड़ित नहीं है। अतः ऐसी ड़स्थड़त में आवेदक को एन0पी0 बोर
ररवाल्वर / ड़पस्टल का शस्त्र लाइसेन्स ड़दये जाने की आवश्यकता
प्रतीत नहीं होती है। आवेदक का प्राथटना पत्र ड़दनांक
13.08.2012 ड़नरस्त ड़कये जाने योग्य है। अतः उपयुटक्त सभी
ड़बन्दुओं पर ड़वचार करते हुये आवेदक का शस्त्र प्राथटना पत्र
ड़दनांक 13.08.2012 आयुध अड़धड़नयम 1959 की धारा 14
भारत सरकार के शासनादेश संख्या V-11016/16/2009Arms Ministry of Home Affairs IS-II
Division / Arms Section dated 31st March,
2010 एवं मा० उच्च न्यायालय लखनऊ खण्डपीठ लखनऊ
द्वारा याड़चका संख्या 3268 (एम०बी०) ड़जतेन्र ड़संह बनाम
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य व अन्य में पाररत आदेश ड़दनांक
07.10.2013 में ड़दये िये प्राड़वधानों के अन्तिटत एतद् द्वारा
ड़नरस्त ड़कया जाता है। आवेदक को यह छूट रहेिी ड़क यड़द
उसके जीवन का कोई खतरा / भय उत्पन्न है तो वह तथ्यों को
स्पष्ट करते हुये पुनः आवेदक दे सकता है।

(तनवीर जफर अली)

ड़जला मड़जस्रेट, झांसी।

10. In the appeal preferred against the
aforesaid order, the appellate authority, i.e.,
Commissioner Jhansi Division Jhansi has
observed that the appellate court does not
find any error in the order, therefore, the
appeal has been rejected. The relevant
portion
of
the
order
is
reproduced
hereinbelow:-

4. मैंिे पत्राविी का अविोकि नकया। नजिा
मनजस्रेट, झा सी िे प्रश्नगत आदेश में उल्िेख नकया है नक
आवेदक की सुरक्षा सम्बन्िी नकसी नवनशष्ट समस्या या
पररनस्थनत सम्बन्िी औनचत्य का आख्याओ में कोई उल्िेख िहीं
है। याची अपराि पीऩित िहीं है। आयुि अनिनियम 1959
12 All. Gyanendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
473
की िारा-14 एव भारत सरकार के शासिादेश स 0-V11016/16/2009-Arms Ministry of Home
Affairs IS-II Division/Arms Section New
Delhi Dated 31st March, 2010 एव मा0 उच्च
न्यायािय, िखिऊ खण्िपीठ द्वारा यानचका स 0-3268
(एम0बी0) नजतेन्र नस ह बिाम सरकार में •पाररत आदेश
नदिा क 07-10-2013 तथा गृह पुनिस अिुभाग-5 के
शासिादेश स ख्या- ररट - 395 / छः-पु-5-2013, नदिा क
08-11-2013 में नदये गये प्रानविािों के अन्तगात शस्त्र
आवेदि पत्र को निरस्त नकया गया है। इस प्रकार मेरे नवचार से
नवद्वाि अवर न्यायािय िे अपीिकताा का शस्त्र िाइसेंस हेतु
प्रस्तुत प्राथािा पत्र निरस्त कर प्रथमदृष्टया कोई नवनिक त्रुनट िहीं
की है, नफर भी अपीिकताा शस्त्र िाइसेंस प्राप्त करिे हेतु
आवेदि पत्र अपिी आवश्यकता के दृनष्टगत पुिः प्रस्तुत कर
सकता है। पररणामतः अपीि बिहीि होिे के कारण निरस्त की
जाती है।

नदसम्बर 11, 2014

(के० राममोहि राव)

आयुक्त, झा सी मण्िि, झा सी

11. I have considered the provisions
for grant of Arms License as contained
under Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act.
Section 13 of the Act provides that an
application for grant of a licensing has to
be made to the Licensing Authority as also
the conditions under which the same would
be issued. Section 14 specifies the
situations wherein a Licensing Authority
shall refuse to grant a license. Section 14 of
the Arms Act is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Section 14.

Refusal
of
licences.-(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,-

(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."

12. From perusal of the fact as
narrated in the writ petition as well as from
perusal of the affidavit submitted for grant
of fire-arm licence, it is clear that the
petitioner applied for arms license for his
own protection and property.

13. There is no right to have an arms
licence which is a privilege and it is a
question of fact which is to be ascertained
by the authorities concerned whether a
person is entitled to the said privilege or
not and no interference with such factual
findings is possible in writ jurisdiction. Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash
Nath and others Vs. State of U.P. and
another reported in A.I.R. 1985 All 291
observed as under:-
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"A right is distinct from a mere
privilege. The case of a licencee to possess
or use firearm is materially different from a
case of licence to deal in or sell firearms.
Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 deals with
acquisition and possession of firearms or
ammunition on the strength of a licence
whereas Section 5 provides for a licence for
manufacture, sale etc. of arms and
ammunition. The licence for acquisition
and possession of firearms is materially
different from a licence for manufacture,
sale etc. While the latter confers a right to
carry on a trade or business and is a
source of earning livelihood, the former is
merely a personal privilege for doing
something which without such privilege
would be unlawful. In my opinion the
obtaining of a licence for acquisition and
possession of firearms and ammunition
under the Arms Act is nothing more than a
privilege and the grant of such privilege
does not involve the adjudication of the
right of an individual nor does it entail civil
consequences. I may, however, hasten to
add that even an order rejecting the
application for grant of licence may
become legally vulnerable if it is passed
arbitrarily or capriciously or without
application of mind. No doubt, a citizen,
may apply for grant of a licence of firearms
mostly with the object of protecting his
person or property but that is mainly the
function of the State. Even remotely this
cannot be comprehended within the ambit
of Article 21 of the Constitution which
postulates
the
fundamental
right
of
protection of life and personal liberty.

In the same judgment it was also
observed that:

"The consistent trend of judicial
decisions has been that the official granting
of the licence involves the exercise of
discretionary licensing powers which are
concerned with privileges and not rights. See
Randall v. Northcote Council (1910) 11 CLR
100, 117-119, Metropolitan Meat Industry
Board v. Finlayson (1916) 22 CLR 340; Ex.
P. Macarthy, re The Milk Board (1935) SR
(NSW) 47; Nakkuda Ali v. Jayaratne 1951 AC
66; R. v. Metropolitan Police Commr., ex p.
Parker (1953) 1 WLR 1150; Modern Theatres
(Provincial) Ltd. v. Peryman (1960) NZLR
191 See also Merchants Bank Ltd. v. Federal
Minister of Finance (1961) 1 All NLR 598
(Nigeria)
(revocation
of
licence).
The
decision in Nakkuda Ali v. Jayaratne 1951
AC 66 was to the effect that the Controller of
Textiles in Ceylon had cancelled a textile
dealer's licence in pursuance of a power to
revoke a licence when he had 'reasonable
grounds' for believing its holder to be unfit to
continue as a dealer. It was held that the
Controller was not determining a question
affecting the rights of subjects but was merely
taking executive action to withdraw a
privilege. It is therefore, apparent that no
citizen has a blanket right to carry firearms.
Its grant is subject to his applying for a
license, and fulfilling the qualifications and
criteria, spelt out in the Act and Rules. The
National
Rifle
Associations
position,
therefore, that its members have a right to
secure a license, is untenable. They have, at
best a right to apply for, and be considered
for the grant of a license, subject to
fulfillment of the prescribed qualifications."

14. The similar view has also been
taken by this Court in the case of Ram Milan
Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ C
No.24708 of 2021). Paragraph 9 of the
aforesaid
judgement
is
reproduced
hereinbelow:-

9. In this case the petitioner has
claimed himself to be an active Advocate,
who desires to have arm licence for his
12 All. Gyanendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
475
personal and professional safety. If an
Advocate requires a firearm licence for his
personal and professional safety, it would
be
a
very
dangerous
practice.
The
profession
of
Advocate
is
a
noble
profession. An Advocate always appears
fearlessly before the Court to protect the
rights of his clients. In case there is a threat
in the mind of Advocate, the entire basis of
nobleness of the profession would fall. If
such applications are allowed without any
concrete basis, a day will come that every
Advocate will carry an arm inside the
Court premises. Every Advocate has a
weapon of his legal arguments with bullets
of judgments passed by High Courts and
Supreme
Court
in
support
of
his
submission, which are enough to provide
safety to his profession and client and are
sufficient to demand justice from the
Courts. Normally they do not need firearm
for their professional safety. It is made
clear that there is no bar for the Advocate
to apply for firearm licence and their
application
can
be
considered
in
accordance with law under the provisions
of Arms Act, 1959 read with Arms Rules,
2016. However, a general trend to have a
firearm licence by an Advocate without any
good reason is not appreciable and it is not
in the interest of noble profession of
Advocate.

15.
 The
only
reason
that
is
forthcoming is that the Petitioner wishes to
own an arms licence for the purpose of his
self-defence/protection.

16. Right to own a fire arm is not a
Fundamental Right in India. This legal
position is settled in several decisions
including the recent decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh
v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP(Crl.)
No. 12831/2022, decision dated 13th
February, 2023] where it has been
observed as under:

"It is again one of those cases where
we find that according to the prosecution
case, an unlicensed fire arm was used in
commission of the offence involving Section
302 IPC also. We have come across cases
where there is this phenomenon of use of
unlicensed fire arms in the commission of
serious offences and this is very disturbing.
Unlike the Constitution of the United States
where the right to bear fire arms is a
fundamental freedom, in the wisdom of our
founding fathers, no such right has been
conferred on anyone under the Constitution
of India. The matter relating to regulation
of fire arms is governed by Statute, viz.,
Arms Act, 1959, inter alia. It is of the
greatest significance to preserve the life of
all, that resort must not be made to
unlicensed fire arms. In particular, if
unlicensed fire arms are freely used, this
will sound the death knell of rule of law." ]

17. Insofar as the judgment cited by
the petitioner in the case of Manoj Kumar
Yadav (supra) is concerned, in the said case
the impugned order which is under
challenge does not narrate any reason on
which ground refusal has been made,
therefore, the aforesaid order has been set
aside by this Court but in the present case,
the
ground
has
been
specifically
mentioned,
therefore,
the
aforesaid
judgement does not apply in this case.

18. Arms licence is a creation of the
statute and the Licensing Authority is
vested with the discretion whether to grant
or not grant such a licence, depending upon
the fact situation in each case. This view
has also been taken by the learned Single
Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case
of Adv. Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
others (W.P. (C) 7034/2023 & CM APPL.
27372/2023)
decided
on
22.05.2023.
Paragraph 13 of the aforesaid judgement is
reproduced hereinbelow:-

"13. Arms licence is a creation of the
statute and the Licensing Authority is
vested with the discretion whether to grant
or not grant such a licence, depending
upon the fact situation in each case. All
lawyers/advocates who are appearing on
the criminal side for the accused or the
prosecution cannot claim a right to own an
arms license, inasmuch as this could result
in
issuance
of
arms
licenses
indiscriminately. The perceived weakness of
the State, which is one of the grounds,
which the Petitioner has urged for seeking
the arms license, if accepted, would result
in recognition of a right to own a fire arm.
This recognition leading to issuance of a
licence and unbridled owning of fire arms,
could also pose a threat to the safety and
security of the other citizens, which the
Licensing Authority would have to keep in
mind while allowing or rejecting the arms
license. The Licensing Authority has to
assess the threat perception and the
reasons for the request for a license which
has been given by the applicant concerned.
It is only after assessing the same that such
a license can be issued. An application by
an advocate merely based on the ground of
appearance on behalf of the accused
persons, in the opinion of this Court, would
not be sufficient to grant an arms license."

19. In the facts of this case, after
having perused the impugned order, this
Court is of the opinion that no interference
is called for in writ jurisdiction as the
refusal of grant of arms license is well
reasoned.

20. The petition is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 476
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 24559 of 2023

Bombay Intelligence Security (I) Ltd.,
Mumbai ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nisheth Yadav, Sri C.B. Yadav (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vibhanshu Srivastava, A.S.G.I., Sri Ashish
Mishra, Sri Pranav Mishra, Sri Siddharth Singhal,
Sri Anand Kumar Yadav

A. Civil Law - Supply of Security Personnel
-
Tender
-
No
advertisement
in
newspapers, but only in Government eMarketplace (GeM) Portal was made -
Effect - Validity of process challenged
- Held, Government e-Marketplace,
being the National Public Procurement
Portal,
acts
as
a
facilitator
for
conducting Forward Auction. Both the
Bidders
and
the
Seller/Auctioneer
must register on GeM portal - Main
objective of the GeM portal is to make
it
simpler
for
government
organizations to locate suppliers of
services and products that satisfy their
demands
for
quantity,
quality,
provenance, and time. Now all the
government tenders are uploaded in
the GeM portal and petitioner is well
aware of this system - Held, it is not
open for the petitioner to allege that
the tender was not published in the
newspaper and properly advertised,
the same should be cancelled. (Para
16, 18 and 19)