# Mahipat Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 221
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-11
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64953 of 2013
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahipat-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42905
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Right to
protection
of
life-petitioner's
brother
murdered-petitioner also residing in same
village-applied
for
five
arms
licenserejected on ground-name of such person
having danger to life not disclosed-appeal
also got same fate-writ court earlier
quashed both order with specific directionagain
on
same
ground
application
rejected-amounts to contempt-can not be
relegated to approach before appellate
authority-order quashed with cost of Rs.
20,000/-.

Held: Para-6
In
the
instant
case,
the
District
Magistrate has mechanically, without
any application of mind and without
considering the observations of the writ
court
has
again
passed
an
order
rejecting the petitioner's application for
grant of an arms licence solely on the
ground that there was no perception of
threat to the life of the petitioner. Such
reasoning adopted by the respondent is
patently erroneous and against the
provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act.
Even otherwise, the court finds that
sufficient reasons have come on record
to indicate the fear of the petitioner of
his life where his real brother was
murdered by some assailants, and that,
by itself, is a sufficient ground. It is not
necessary that the petitioner should
intimate the District Magistrate the
name of the persons against whom he
has a threat. It is sufficient for the
petitioner to indicate the reasons.

## Text

1 All] Mahipat Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
221

15. The writ petition is dismissed
with a direction that the restoration
application may be disposed of as
expeditiously
as
possible
preferably
within a period of six months.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 11.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64953 of 2013

Mahipat Singh... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Right to
protection
of
life-petitioner's
brother
murdered-petitioner also residing in same
village-applied
for
five
arms
licenserejected on ground-name of such person
having danger to life not disclosed-appeal
also got same fate-writ court earlier
quashed both order with specific directionagain
on
same
ground
application
rejected-amounts to contempt-can not be
relegated to approach before appellate
authority-order quashed with cost of Rs.
20,000/-.

Held: Para-6
In
the
instant
case,
the
District
Magistrate has mechanically, without
any application of mind and without
considering the observations of the writ
court
has
again
passed
an
order
rejecting the petitioner's application for
grant of an arms licence solely on the
ground that there was no perception of
threat to the life of the petitioner. Such
reasoning adopted by the respondent is
patently erroneous and against the
provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act.
Even otherwise, the court finds that
sufficient reasons have come on record
to indicate the fear of the petitioner of
his life where his real brother was
murdered by some assailants, and that,
by itself, is a sufficient ground. It is not
necessary that the petitioner should
intimate the District Magistrate the
name of the persons against whom he
has a threat. It is sufficient for the
petitioner to indicate the reasons.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. The petitioner's brother was
murdered in the village where the
petitioner
was
also
residing.
The
petitioner feared for his life and with this
unfounded fear that he may also be
murdered by unknown assailants and in
order to protect his life which is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution, applied for an arms licence
under the Arms Act, 1959.

2. The fact that his brother died is
admitted by the respondents. The fact that for
this purpose the petitioner had applied is also
admitted but due to short-sightedness, the
District Magistrate refused to grant a licence
and rejected his application on the ground that
there was no threat to his life. The petitioner
filed an appeal which was also rejected and
consequently, the petitioner filed Writ Petition
No. 58060 of 2011 which was allowed by a
judgement dated 11.10.2011. The writ court
quashed the order of the District Magistrate
and the appellate order and directed the
District Magistrate to re-decide the matter in
accordance with the observations made in the
judgement. For facility the extract of the
judgement is quoted hereunder :-

"7. This Court in Pawan Kumar Jha
Vs. State of U.P. and others 2010(10)
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ADJ 782 has held that undue restriction
on keeping and bearing arms ought notbe
based on unfounded fear. Licence is
normally to be granted unless there is
something adverse.

8. A fire arm licence cannot be
denied only on conjectures and surmises
and without appreciating the objective of
statute under which the power is being
exercised. Right to life and liberty which
includes within its ambit right of security
and safety of a person and taking,
adopting and pursuing such means as are
necessary for such safety and security, is a
fundamental right of every person.
Keeping a fire arm for the purpose of
personal safety and security is a mode and
manner of protection of oneself and
enjoyment of fundamental right of life
and liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
In
the
interest
of
maintenance of law and order certain
reasonable restrictions have been imposed
on such right but that would not make the
fundamental right itself to be dependant
on the vagaries of executive authorities. It
is not a kind of privilege being granted by
Government to individual but only to the
extent where grant of fire arm licence to
an individual would demonstratively
prejudice
or
adversely
affect
the
maintenance of law and order including
peace and tranquillity in the society,
ordinarily such right shall not be denied.
It is in these circumstances, this Court has
observed that grant of fire arm licence
ordinarily be an action and denial an
exception. In Vinod Kumar Shukla Vs.
State of U.P. and others, (Writ Petition
No.
38645
of
2011),
decided
on
15.07.2011 this Court has said:

"When a fire arm licence is granted
for personal safety and security it does not
mean that in the family consisting of
several persons only one fire arm licence
is to be granted. Moreover, this cannot be
a reason for denial of arm licence. Fire
arm licence can be denied only if the
reason assigned by applicant or details
given by him in application are not found
to be correct but merely because there are
one fire arm licence already possessed by
one of the family member, the same
cannot be denied. Grant of fire arm
licence should ordinarily be an action and
denial should be an exception. The
approach of authorities below is clearly
arbitrary and illegal. It also lacks purpose
and objective of the statute."

9. The authorities empowered to grant
licence under the Act ought not to behave as
if they are part of the old British sovereignty
and the applicant is a pity subject whose
every demand deserved to be crushed on
one or the other pretext. The requirement of
an Indian citizen governed by rule of law
under the Indian Constitution deserved to be
considered with greater respect and honour.
The authorities thus shall have considered
the requirement of applicant with more
pragmatic and practical approach. Unless
they find that in the garb of safety and
security, applicant in fact intend to use the
weapon by obtaining a licence for a purpose
other than self defence, it ought not to have
been denied such licence. I am not putting
the statutory power of authority concerned
in a compartment since there may be more
than one reasons for exercising statutory
discretion against applicant but then that
must justify in the context of purpose and
objective of statute and necessarily ought
not be whimsical.

10. Both impugned orders in the case
in hand shows that on wholly conjectures
and surmises the authorities have denied
1 All] Chandra Boss Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
223
petitioner's claim for fire arm licence and
have rejected his application in a most
arbitrary
manner.
The
two
orders,
therefore, cannot sustain."

3. The court held that a licence can be
granted for right to life and liberty which
includes within its ambit right of security and
safety of a person being a fundamental right.
The petitioner was entitled to get a fire arms
for the purpose of personal safety and
security. The court also held that the orders
passed by the District Magistrate was based
on surmises and conjectures.

4. Inspite of this direction, the
District Magistrate again rejected the
application vide an order dated 6.1.2012
holding that the petitioner does not have
any threat to his life. The petitioner being
aggrieved, filed an appeal which was
allowed and the matter was remanded.
The District Magistrate again by the
impugned order dated 29.8.2013 has
passed an order mechanically on the same
ground namely that there is no threat of
the life. The petitioner being aggrieved
has now filed the present writ petition.

5. This court entertained the writ
petition and did not relegate the petitioner to
file an appeal as the court was of the opinion
that the petitioner was unnecessarily being
harassed and was being made to run from
one authority to the other. The court finds
that the observations made by the writ court
in its judgment dated 11.10.2011 has not
been adhered to by the District Magistrate.
The District Magistrate was bound by such
observations and could not ignore such
observations. By ignoring such observations
the District Magistrate became guilty of
contempt of the court.

6. In the instant case, the District
Magistrate has mechanically, without any
application of mind and without considering
the observations of the writ court has again
passed an order rejecting the petitioner's
application for grant of an arms licence
solely on the ground that there was no
perception of threat to the life of the
petitioner. Such reasoning adopted by the
respondent is patently erroneous and against
the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act.
Even otherwise, the court finds that sufficient
reasons have come on record to indicate the
fear of the petitioner of his life where his real
brother was murdered by some assailants,
and that, by itself, is a sufficient ground. It is
not necessary that the petitioner should
intimate the District Magistrate the name of
the persons against whom he has a threat. It
is sufficient for the petitioner to indicate the
reasons.

7. In the light of the aforesaid, the
impugned order is quashed. Writ petition
is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.
20,000/- which the District Magistrate
will pay to the petitioner within two
weeks from the date of production of a
certified copy of the order. The matter is
remitted to the District Magistrate to redecide the petitioner's application in the
light of the observations made in the
judgment dated 11.10.2012 and the
observations made in this judgment
within four weeks.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66759 of 2013

Chandra Boss... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Respondents