# Ishtiyaq Khan v. Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow and another

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 526
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-05-25
- **Bench:** Rajiv Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ishtiyaq-khan-v-commissioner-lucknow-division-lucknow-and-another-41915
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Arms Act, 1959-Section-13 and 14Licence of Non Prohibited Fire Armsrevenue as well as Police Authorities
submitted report with recommendation
to grant of Licence-rejected on ground
the Petitioner not disclosed the name of
anti-social elements and eminent danger
of life-held-wholly misconceived-except
the grounds mention in Section 14 there
can not be basis for refusal beyond
statutory provision-Licensee as well as
appellate authorities committed great
illegality-orders
set-a-side-with
consequential direction.

Held: Para 14 and 15

It may be noted that in Abdul Kafi versus
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad
and
another
[2003
(21)
LCD
299]
the
petitioner filed a writ petition when his
application was rejected although the
report of the concerned authorities were
in
favour
of
the
petitioner.
The
application was rejected by the Licensing
Authority
on
the
ground
that
the
petitioner
has
not
stated
in
his
application form as to from whom he has
danger to his life

The aforesaid citation is fully applicable
in the instant case as here also, as
averred above, the application has been
rejected simply on the ground that the
petitioner has not indicated that what
type of danger he apprehends and why
the arms license is required by him.
Case law discussed:
[2003 (21) LCD 299]

## Text

526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA,J.

Misc. Single No. - 1558 of 2010

Ishtiyaq Khan

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner
Lucknow
Division
Lucknow and another
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arun Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Arms Act, 1959-Section-13 and 14Licence of Non Prohibited Fire Armsrevenue as well as Police Authorities
submitted report with recommendation
to grant of Licence-rejected on ground
the Petitioner not disclosed the name of
anti-social elements and eminent danger
of life-held-wholly misconceived-except
the grounds mention in Section 14 there
can not be basis for refusal beyond
statutory provision-Licensee as well as
appellate authorities committed great
illegality-orders
set-a-side-with
consequential direction.

Held: Para 14 and 15

It may be noted that in Abdul Kafi versus
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad
and
another
[2003
(21)
LCD
299]
the
petitioner filed a writ petition when his
application was rejected although the
report of the concerned authorities were
in
favour
of
the
petitioner.
The
application was rejected by the Licensing
Authority
on
the
ground
that
the
petitioner
has
not
stated
in
his
application form as to from whom he has
danger to his life

The aforesaid citation is fully applicable
in the instant case as here also, as
averred above, the application has been
rejected simply on the ground that the
petitioner has not indicated that what
type of danger he apprehends and why
the arms license is required by him.
Case law discussed:
[2003 (21) LCD 299]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J. )

1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Rakesh
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
Standing Counsel.

2. Brief facts of the present case are
that the petitioner is resident of Village
Andapur,
Police
Station
Phardhan,
District Kheri and by profession, he is a
contractor registered as such with Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. On 4.6.2008, the
petitioner applied for non-prohibited
Revolver (Firearm) license in the requisite
format before the Licensing Authority.
Licensing Authority call for the reports as
required under Section 13 of the Arms
Act. The authorities, namely, Station
House Officer and In-charge DCRB,
Kheri submitted their respective reports
dated 8.7.2009 and 11.8.2009. On the
basis of the said report, Superintendent of
Police, Kheri also submitted the report
dated
26.9.2009
recommending
for
issuance of Arms License.The revenue
authorities,
i.e.
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri also vide
report dated 25.6.2008 forwarded the
application
for
grant
of
Arms
License.When no action was taken on his
application, he filed a writ petition No.
2434 (MS) of 2009 which was disposed
of finally vide order dated 7.5.2009 with a
2 All] Ishtiyaq Khan V. Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow and another
527
direction to the Licensing Authority to
decide the application for granting arms
license. In compliance of this Court's
Order dated 7.5.2009, the case of the
petitioner was considered and the same
was rejected vide orders dated 1.10.2009.
Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal which
too was dismissed.

3. Petitioner has assailed the
aforesaid orders inter alia on the grounds
that the Licensing Authority and the
Appellate Authority have overlooked the
police
report
furnished
by
the
Superintendent of Police, Kheri based on
the report of Station House Officer, Police
Station Phardhan, District Kheri as well
as the recommendations made by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri
submitted in favour of the petitioner for
granting fire arm license and thus
committed manifest error in law in
rejecting the application for granting arm
license for his personal safety insofar as
the petitioner has specifically shown his
urgent need of the fire arm license as he
mostly travels with huge amount in
connection with his business. For the
purposes of safety of his personal life, he
is in dire need of license. It has been
clarified
that
he
has
no
criminal
antecedents, yet the Licensing Authority
has rejected the application for grant of
license.

4. Learned Standing Counsel
submits that vide Government Order
dated 5.6.1999, the State Government
directed the District Authorities to be
cautious in issuing arms license and while
considering the applications for grant of
license, the same should be issued only
after satisfying that there is immense
danger to life to the applicant and he
meets
all
requirements
and
other
stipulations. Learned Standing further
submits
that
Section
13
(3)
(b)
specifically deals with the conditions for
issuing the arms license. In the police
report and the report of Revenue
Department, no actual danger of life or
the requirement of any personal security
to the applicant has been reported.
Further, in the application for Arms
License, no reason has been mentioned,
therefore, the nature of danger could not
be substantiated and as such, the District
Magistrate did not find sufficient ground
for granting arms license to the petitioner
which was rejected vide order dated
1.10.2009. According to him, the appeal
has also rightly been rejected by the order
dated 7.1.2010.

5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in the police and
revenue reports, it is clearly mentioned
that the petitioner is in need of fire arms
license for safety and security of his life
as he is a contractor by profession.
Further, he asserts that in the Arms Act,
nowhere it is mentioned that specific
reason should be disclosed in the
application form.

6. Considered the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the parties and
perused
the
record
including
the
impugned orders. In order to adjudicate
the matter, provisions of Sections 13 and
14 of the Arms Act, 1959 are necessary
which are reproduced hereunder:-

13. Grant of licenses -- (1) An
application for the grant of a license under
Chapter II shall be made to the licensing
authority and shall be in such form,
contain
such
particulars
and
be
accompanied by such fee, if any, as may
be prescribed.
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

(2) On receipt of an application, the
licensing authority shall call for the report
of the officer in charge of the nearest
police station on that application, and
such officer shall send his report within
the prescribed time.

(2A) The licensing authority, after
such inquiry, if any, as it may consider
necessary, and after considering the report
received under sub-section (2), shall,
subject to the other provisions of this
Chapter, by order in writing either grant
the licence or refuse to grant the same:

Provided that where the officer in
charge of the nearest police station does
not send his report on the application
within the prescribed time, the licensing
authority may, if it deems fit, make such
order, after the expiry of the prescribed
time, without further waiting for that
report.

(3) The licensing authority shall
grant --

(a) a license under Section 3 where
the license is required --

(i) by a citizen of India in respect of
a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not
less than twenty inches in length to be
used for protection or spot or in respect of
a muzzle loading gun to be used for boan
fide crop protection:

Provided that where having regard to
the circumstances of any case, the
licensing authority is satisfied that a
muzzle loading gun will not be sufficient
for crop protection, the licensing authority
may grant a licence in respect of any other
smooth bore gun as aforesaid for such
protection; or

(ii) in respect of a point 22 bore rifle
or an air rifle to be used for target practice
by a member of a rifle club or rifle
association licensed or recognized by the
Central Government;

(b) a license under section 3 in any
other case or a license under sub 4,
section 5, section 6, section 10 or section
12, if the licensing authority is satisfied
that the person by whom the license is
required has a good reason for obtaining
the same.

14. Refusal of license -- (1)
Notwithstanding anything in section 13,
licensing authority shall refuse to grant --

(a) a license under section 3, section
4 or section 5 where such license 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 All] Ishtiyaq Khan V. Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow and another
529

(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.

7. Under Section 3 of the Arms Act,
1959, it is essential to obtain an arms
possession license issued by a competent
licensing authority by any person for
acquisition, possession or carrying any
firearms or ammunition. Section 13 of the
Arms Act, 1959 contains provisions
relating to grant of arms licenses by the
licensing authority concerned. On receipt
of an application, the licensing authority is
required to call for a report from the officer
in-charge of the nearest police station and
such officer is required to send his report
about the bona fide of the antecedent of the
applicant to the licensing authority, within
the
prescribed
time.
The
licensing
authority is required to take a decision
whether to grant or to refuse to grant the
arms possession license, based on the
report of the police authorities and subject
to fulfilment of other conditions stipulated
under the Arms Act. However, there is a
provision to Section 13 (2A), which
empowers the licensing authority to grant
an arm license where the report of the
police authorities has not been received
within the prescribed time.

8. It is relevant to point out that the
quantum of prescribed time referred to in
Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 has not
been specifically defined under the said At.
This being so, the chances of invoking
proviso may be easy, which may lead to
grant of an arms license to a person whose
antecedents, may not be clear.

9. Considering the importance of the
police verification report in the grant of
arms
licenses
to
any
person,
the
Government
of
India
by
way
of
amendment decided to delete the proviso
to Section 13 (2A) of the Arms Act, 1959
and prescribe a period of 60 days for the
police authorities to send their report, to
obviate chances of discretion being used
by the licensing authority to issue any arms
license without police verification report.

10. Now, the position is that the
licensing authority will be obliged to take
into consideration the report of the police
authorities before grant of arms license in
each case, with the deletion of the proviso
to Section 13 (2A) of the Arms Act, 1959.

11. In view of the prescription
provided under Section 14 of the Act, it is
obligatory
upon
the
District
Magistrate/Licensing Authority to record
the reasons in writing, in case he refused to
grant a license and communicate the same
to the applicant.

12. In this instant case, while
rejecting the application, the Licensing
Authority stated that the applicant did not
mention the reason that what type of
danger he apprehends and why the arms
license is required by him. Further, he has
relied upon the aforesaid provisions
heavily. A careful perusal of the aforesaid
Sections, it reveals that no where it is
mentioned that specific reason should be
disclosed in the application for obtaining
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
arms license. The only condition is that
report should be obtained from the police
authorities concerned. Here, the police
authorities submitted the report in favour
of the petitioner. Even, the revenue
authorities have also submitted that the
petitioner may be granted arms license.
Though two reports are in favour of the
petitioner and further the reason for
obtaining the arms license is mentioned in
the application itself i.e. being a contractor
he mostly travels with huge amount, yet
the District Magistrate had stated in the
impugned order that the petitioner has not
mentioned specific immense threat to his
life for obtaining arms license.

13. It is well settled law that right to
life is the fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. In case, a citizen feels that he
requires fire arm for his personal security,
then it is bounden duty of the authority
concerned to consider and decide the
application in accordance with law, within
a reasonable time, but neither the
Licensing Authority nor the Appellate
Authority
considered
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and simply
rejected the application and the said order
was uphold. In the writ petition, the
petitioner has specifically averred that the
petitioner is in urgent need of the fire arm
license as he mostly travels with huge
amount in connection with his business
and there is great possibility of robbery or
loot. which may endanger his life. In all
probabilities, the impugned orders are
liable to be quashed.

14. It may be noted that in Abdul
Kafi
versus
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad and another [2003 (21) LCD
299] the petitioner filed a writ petition
when his application was rejected although
the report of the concerned authorities
were in favour of the petitioner. The
application was rejected by the Licensing
Authority on the ground that the petitioner
has not stated in his application form as to
from whom he has danger to his life. The
Court
after
examining
the
various
provisions of the Arms Act observed in
paragraph 7 as under:-

"7.
Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the respondents tried to
justify the order passed by the licensing
authority, which has been challenged in the
present petition but, in my opinion, he
failed to substantiate and support the
reasoning given in the order. Learned
Standing Counsel also could not point out
any provision under the Arms Act on the
basis whereof the reasoning given by the
licensing
authority
for
rejecting
the
petitioner's application for grant of firearm
license can be justified."

15. The aforesaid citation is fully
applicable in the instant case as here also,
as averred above, the application has been
rejected simply on the ground that the
petitioner has not indicated that what type
of danger he apprehends and why the arms
license is required by him.

16. In view of the aforesaid
discussion and legal position, the writ
petition is allowed and the impugned order
passed by the Licensing Authority dated
1.10.2009 and the Appellate Authority's
order dated 7.1.2010 are hereby quashed.
On the application of the petitioner for
grant of license, the District Magistrate
shall pass fresh appropriate orders in light
of the observations made here-in-above.
---------
2 All] Rajendra Singh {N-State} V. State of U.P. and others
531
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVILSIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.05.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL,J.

Service Single No. - 2099 of 2001

Rajendra Singh {N-State}
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.Through Secy.Home and 7
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K.Shukla
Sri Nishi Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 22-Revision
and gravity-father of Petitioner-working
as Police constable retired on 08.06.1967
died on 11.08.1981-mother also died
22.01.94 without pension even after
expiry of 13 years and 11 years in
litigation-no plausible amount made in
Courts affidavit except process going onheld-shocking-pension
attained
the
status of Fundamental Right considering
extraordinary delay exumplory cost of
Rs. 2,50000/- imposed with direction to
pay entire amount with 10% interestwithin 3 month.

Held: Para 19

In view of the above, I have no
hesitation in holding that non payment
of
retiral
benefits
and
others
to
petitioner
is
wholly
arbitrary
and
unreasonable. There was no justification
at all for respondents to delay payment
thereof.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1983 SC 130; 1972 AC 1027; 1964 AC
1129; JT 1993 (6) SC 307; JT 2004 (5) SC 17;
(1996) 6 SCC 530; (1996) 6 SCC 558; AIR
1996 SC 715; Shamal Chand Tiwari Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors. (Writ Petition No.34804 of
2004) decided on 6.12.2005; (1987) 4 SCC
328; (1994) 6 SCC 589; AIR 1997 SC 27;
(1999) 3 SCC 438; (2008) 3 SCC 44; 2011 (2)
ADJ 608; (2008) 119 FLR 787; AIR 2005 SC
2755;

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.)

1. List revised. None appeared on
behalf of the petitioner. However, I have
perused the record.

2. The petitioner's father retired on 8th
July, 1967 from the post of constable and
died on 11th August, 1981 leaving his
widow i.e. mother of the petitioner and
children. The family pension to widow was
not paid by the respondents though the
petitioner and his mother approached
respondents repeatedly. Ultimately the
widow also died on 22nd January, 1994.
Thereafter the respondents continued to
make correspondence from one to another
authorities. The fact however remains that
family
pension
from
11.08.1981
to
22.01.1994 was not paid to the unfortunate
widow of the deceased employee and even
after her death to the legal heirs i.e. the
petitioner till 2001 when this writ petition
was filed and even thereafter.

3. In the counter affidavit respondents
have given details of various letters issued
from one authority to another but the fact
remains that even in counter affidavit there
is not a single averment, by the time it was
filed, that family pension has already been
paid to the petitioner. It only says that
proceeding have been initiated and are
pending.

4. This is really a very unfortunate
case where old widow of a deceased
employee continued to suffer and starve for
not receiving family pension for almost 13
years and ultimately died without getting it.
The legal heirs of the ex deceased employee