# Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 176
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-13
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 16298 of 2021
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49636
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Indian Arms Act, 1959 -
Section 3 - Licence for acquisition and
possession of firearms and ammunition -
Section 4 - Licence for acquisition and
possession
of
arms
of
specified
description in certain cases - Section 5 -
Licence for manufacture, sale, etc., of
arms and ammunition - Section 13 -
Grant of licences, Section14- Refusal of
licences - grant of firearms license is not
a largesse and a person is entitled for
grant of said license on his own right -
undue restrain on keeping and bearing
arms ought not be based on unfounded
fear and license is normally to be
granted
unless
there
is
something
adverse. (Para - 7,19)

(B) The Constitution of India - Article 21
- right to life and liberty, which includes
its right of security and safety, is a
fundamental right of every person -
Keeping a fire arm licence for the
purpose of personal safety and security
is a mode and manner of protection of
oneself and enjoyment of this right -
Statutory power of authority should be
applied in the context of purpose and
objective of statute, and should not be
whimsical. (Para - 18)

Petitioner (practicing Advocate ) applied for
Application for Grant Arms License - purpose -
personal safety and security of property - no
criminal record - application was initially pending
with District Magistrate - Court disposed of
petition with a direction to consider and decide
application - application rejected - appeal filed
by petitioner was rejected - hence petition.
(Para - 3,10)

HELD:-The order impugned dated 07.09.2020,
which rejected the application of the petitioner
for a firearms license, is against the provisions
of Section 14 of the Act, 1959. Reasons
contained in the order are beyond the reasons
enumerated under Section 14 of the Act, 1959.
Orders
impugned
dated
12.04.2021
and
07.09.2020 quashed. Matter remitted to District
Magistrate, to pass an order on the application
of the petitioner for grant of firearms license
within six weeks. (Para - 21)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,937 of 48,950. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39937 for what follows._

176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. The orders impugned in present
petition are clearly in violation of not only
Rule 7(3)(c)of the Rules 1997 but are also
against the dictum of this Court in the case
of Ram Khelawan (supra) as well as that of
Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of
Ambrish Tandaon (supra).

15. In view of discussions made
herein above, impugned orders dated 28th
March, 2018 as well as order dated 11th
December, 2019 passed by opposite parties
3 and 2 respectively being against law are
hereby set aside.

16. Consequently, the writ petition
succeeds
and
is
allowed
with
consequences. Parties to bear their own
costs.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 176
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ C No. 16298 of 2021

Manoj Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shantanu Sharma, Anshuman Sharma,
Athar Ali

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - Indian Arms Act, 1959 -
Section 3 - Licence for acquisition and
possession of firearms and ammunition -
Section 4 - Licence for acquisition and
possession
of
arms
of
specified
description in certain cases - Section 5 -
Licence for manufacture, sale, etc., of
arms and ammunition - Section 13 -
Grant of licences, Section14- Refusal of
licences - grant of firearms license is not
a largesse and a person is entitled for
grant of said license on his own right -
undue restrain on keeping and bearing
arms ought not be based on unfounded
fear and license is normally to be
granted
unless
there
is
something
adverse. (Para - 7,19)

(B) The Constitution of India - Article 21
- right to life and liberty, which includes
its right of security and safety, is a
fundamental right of every person -
Keeping a fire arm licence for the
purpose of personal safety and security
is a mode and manner of protection of
oneself and enjoyment of this right -
Statutory power of authority should be
applied in the context of purpose and
objective of statute, and should not be
whimsical. (Para - 18)

Petitioner (practicing Advocate ) applied for
Application for Grant Arms License - purpose -
personal safety and security of property - no
criminal record - application was initially pending
with District Magistrate - Court disposed of
petition with a direction to consider and decide
application - application rejected - appeal filed
by petitioner was rejected - hence petition.
(Para - 3,10)

HELD:-The order impugned dated 07.09.2020,
which rejected the application of the petitioner
for a firearms license, is against the provisions
of Section 14 of the Act, 1959. Reasons
contained in the order are beyond the reasons
enumerated under Section 14 of the Act, 1959.
Orders
impugned
dated
12.04.2021
and
07.09.2020 quashed. Matter remitted to District
Magistrate, to pass an order on the application
of the petitioner for grant of firearms license
within six weeks. (Para - 21)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Writ-C No.16565 of 2012
2 All. Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
177
2. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Jaswant Singh Sarna ,
AIR 1968 All 383

3. Abdul Kafi Vs D.M., Alld. , 2002 (45) ACC
1121

4. Brij Nandan Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., 2011
(9) ADJ 135

5. Pawan Kumar Jha Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,
2010 (10) ADJ 782

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents.

2. Instant petition has been filed
praying for the following main reliefs:-

"1.) Issue a writ, order, direction in
the nature of Certiorari to quash the illegal,
impugned order dated 12.04.2021 passed by
Divisional
Commissioner,
Prayagraj
Division, Prayagraj i.e., opposite party no.2
in Appeal No.01052/2020 in re: Manoj
Kumar Yadav Vs. State under section 18,
Indian Arms Act, 1959 and illegal, impugned
order dated 07.09.2020 passed by District
Magistrate, Pratapgarh Le opposite party
no.3 regarding Grant of Arms License to
Petitioner the illegal impugned order dated
07.09.2020 passed by District Magistrate,
Pratapgarh i.e. opposite party no.2 regarding
Grant of Arms License Application of
Petitioner
i.e.,
Annexure
no.1
&
2
respectively, in the interest of justice.

2.) Issue a writ, order, direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
Opposite
parties
to
consider
the
Application for Grant Arms License of the
Petitioner and to decide the issue of grant
of arms license in accordance with law
within a stipulated period in the interest of
justice."

3. The case set forth by the petitioner
is that he is a practicing lawyer at District
Pratapgarh and is a law abiding citizen
without any criminal record. He applied for
grant of a firearms license for the purpose
of personal safety and security of his
property. The application of the petitioner
initially remained pending with the District
Magistrate, Pratapgarh, which required the
petitioner to file Writ Petition No.27645
(MS) of 2016 in re: Manoj Kumar vs. State
of U.P. and others before this Court. This
Court vide order dated 22.01.2020 disposed
of the petition with a direction to the
District Magistrate to consider and decide
the application of the petitioner. In
pursuance thereof, vide order impugned
dated 07.09.2020, the application of the
petitioner for grant of firearms license has
been rejected. The appeal filed by the
petitioner has also been rejected vide order
dated 12.04.2019 and hence the petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
while seeking to challenge the impugned
order dated 07.09.2020 whereby the
application of the petitioner for grant of
firearms license has been rejected contends
that a perusal of the order impugned would
indicate that the District Magistrate has
indicated three reasons while rejecting the
application of the petitioner namely (a) no
reasons have been assigned by the
petitioner as to why he requires the
firearms license (b) there is no report of
actual requirement of arms license from the
authorities, and (c) there is no threat
perception to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that a perusal of the order
impugned would indicate that the Inspector
Incharge of the Kowali Nagar Pratapgarh as
well as the Tehsil authorities have both
submitted their reports, as finds place in the
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order impugned, whereby it has been
indicated that the petitioner is a fit person
for being granted an arms license. It is
contended that the grounds taken by the
District Magistrate while rejecting the
application of the petitioner for grant of
firearms license are totally alien to the
provisions contained in Section 14 of the
Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Act, 1959').

6.

Elaborating
the
same,
the
contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that Section 14 of the Act,
1959 is couched in negative terms i.e. the
circumstances in which refusal of license
can be made. He contends that none of the
grounds, as have been indicated by the
District Magistrate while rejecting the
application of the petitioner for grant of
firearms license, fall within the ambit of
Section 14 of the Act, 1959 and as such on
this ground alone the order impugned
merits to be quashed.

7. In this regard, reliance has been
placed on a judgment of this Court in the
case of Dinesh Kumar Pandey vs. State
of U.P. and others passed in Writ-C
No.16565 of 2012 decided on 25.07.2012
to argue that in similar circumstances this
Court has categorically held that grant of
firearms license is not a largesse and a
person is entitled for grant of said license
on his own right.

8. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel on the basis of averments
contained in the counter affidavit argues
that a perusal of the order impugned would
indicate that the competent authority has
not found the petitioner to be a fit person
for grant of firearms license inasmuch as
there is no threat perception against the
petitioner which has come up in any of the
reports that were called for prior to
considering the application of the petitioner
for grant of firearms license. It is also
contended that various Government Orders
have been issued which detail the method
on which firearms license is to be granted
to a person applying for the same. Thus, it
is contended that there is no infirmity or
illegality in the order impugned and the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. Heard and perused the records.

10. From perusal of the records it
emerges that the petitioner, a practicing
Advocate of District Pratapgarh, had
applied for grant of firearms license before
the
competent
authority.
The
same
remained pending before the competent
authority and the orders have only been
passed after a direction issued by the writ
Court. Be that as it may, the order
impugned dated 07.09.2020 whereby the
application for grant of firearms license has
been rejected on the grounds namely (a) no
reasons have been assigned by the
petitioner as to why he requires the
firearms license (b) there is no report of
actual requirement of arms license from the
authorities, and (c) there is no threat
perception to the petitioner.

11. The procedure for grant of
firearms license and its refusal is contained
in the Act, 1959. Section 13 of the Act,
1959 pertains to grant of licenses whereas
Section 14 of the Act, 1959 pertains to
refusal of licenses. For the sake of
convenience, Sections 13 and 14 of the Act,
1959 are reproduced below:-

"13. Grant of licences.―(1) An
application for the grant of a licence under
Chapter II shall be made to the licensing
authority and shall be in such form, contain
2 All. Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
179
such particulars and be accompanied by
such fee, if any, as may be prescribed.

[(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 licence under section 3 where
the licence 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 sport or in respect of a muzzle
loading gun to be used for bona 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 recognised by the
Central Government;

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

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 Section 13 of the
Act, 1959, it emerges that an application
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application for the grant of a license under
Chapter II shall be made to the licensing
authority and to be in such form, contain
such particulars and to be accompanied by
a fee. On receipt of the said application, the
licensing authority has to call for a report
from the officer in charge of the nearest
police station and may after inquiry, if any,
as it may consider necessary and after
considering the report shall, subject to the
other provisions of the Act, by order in
writing either grant the license or refuse to
grant the same.

13. Perusal of Section 14 of the Act,
1959
indicates
that
notwithstanding
anything contained in Section 13 of the
Act, 1959, the licensing authority shall
refuse to grant a license under Section 3,
Section 4 or Section 5 where such license is
required in respect of any prohibited arms
or prohibited ammunition; where a license
is required by a person whom the licensing
authority has reason to believe (i) to be
prohibited by the Act or any other law from
having in his possession or carrying any
arms or ammunition (ii) to be of unsound
mind or (iii) to be for any reason unfit for a
license under the Act; where the licensing
authority deems it necessary for the
security of the public peace or for public
safety to refuse to grant such license.
However, the license shall not be refused
on the ground that such person does not
own or possess sufficient property. Further
the licensing authority refusing to grant a
license to any person has to record reasons
for such refusal.

14. From a perusal of the aforesaid
provision, it emerges that though the
authority has got power to refuse or grant
license yet such refusal would only be
confined to the conditions as contained in
sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act,
1959,
as
already
indicated
above.
Obviously the reasons as are required to be
indicated by the authority as provided in
sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act,
1959 would have to adhere to the reasons
on which refusal can be made i.e. the
reasons as indicated in sub-section (1) of
Section 14 of the Act, 1959.

15. The reasons contained in the order
impugned dated 07.09.2020 do not indicate
that any of the reasons on which the refusal
of license can be made, as provided under
Section 14 of the Act, 1959 are the reasons
which have prevailed on the District
Magistrate, Pratapgarh while refusing the
license rather it is apparent that the reasons
which have prevailed on the District
Magistrate, Pratapgarh, while refusing to
grant of firearms license to the petitioner,
are totally alien to the provisions of the Act,
1959. Even if certain Government Orders
as have been indicated in the impugned
order are to be seen, it goes without saying
that the said Government Orders or
circulars issued from time to time can not
go against the mandatory provisions of
Section 14 of the Act, 1959.

16. In this regard provisions of
Section 13 and 14 of the Act 1959 were
considered by a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of State of U.P. and
others vs Jaswant Singh Sarna reported
in AIR 1968 All 383 wherein it was held as
under:

"It is clear that section 13
recognises a right to a licence. Apart from
cases where the fire arm is required for
protection or sport or crop protection or for
target practice in a Rifle Club or Rifle
Association, any one is entitled to it if he
has good reason for obtaining it. There
must be good reason for obtaining the
2 All. Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
181
licence, and that condition regulates the
grant of a licence. The requirement has
been imposed to prevent an abuse of the
right
by
members
of
the
public.
Nonetheless, as soon as the condition is
satisfied the grant is obligatory and it is not
open to a licensing authority to refuse a
licence arbitrarily." (para 8) (emphasis
added)"

17. This Court in the case of Abdul
Kafi vs District Magistrate, Allabahad
reported in 2002 (45) ACC 1121 has held
that the scheme of Act 1959 does not
contemplate that licence of firearm shall be
granted only if somebody has apprehension
to his life from someone and rejection of
firearm licence on such ground means an
order
passed
on
wholly
irrelevant
consideration.

18. This Court in the case of Brij
Nandan Singh vs State of U.P. and
another reported in 2011 (9) ADJ 135 has
held as under:

"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
tranquility in the society, ordinarily such right
shall not be denied....." (Para 7)

"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."

19. Again this Court in the case of
Pawan Kumar Jha vs State of U.P. and
others reported in 2010 (10) ADJ 782 has
held that undue restrain on keeping and
bearing arms ought not be based on
unfounded fear and license is normally to
be granted unless there is something
adverse.

20.

Considering
the
aforesaid
judgements, this Court in the case of
Dinesh Kumar Pandey (supra) while also
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
considering the discretion of the licensing
authority to grant a firearms license and the
various government orders and circulars
issued in this regard has held as under:-

"62. I have no hesitation thus in
observing
that
a
cumulative
and
harmonious reading of Sections 13 and 14
leave no manner of doubt that an objective
consideration is mandated on the part of
licensing authority. He cannot deny grant
of license to a person on his sheer whims,
caprices, imagination etc. Here it answers
the requirement of reasonableness also.
The procedure is consistent with the
requirement of principle of natural justice.
To some extent, it brings into consideration
Article 14 of the Constitution. One cannot
say that under the garb of the words, "any
reason", "unfit for grant of licence", or the
absence of a "good reason" for obtaining
license, a licensing authority is empowered
to deny licence on sheer flimsy grounds,
namely, he will grant it only to those who
have white hair or blue eyes or having a
particular height and like. Similarly, the
licensing authority cannot discover within
"good reasons" for obtaining licence
certain ex facie absurd reasons, namely, if
a person belongs to a particular political
party, or, that a person if belongs to a
particular class or caste, and so on. These
considerations
are
impermissible
and
cannot be construed a "good reason". In
the garb of "good reason" for obtaining
licence, one also cannot stretch to a
situation
which
would
be
virtually
impossible to be performed or placed on
record.

69. Now the question comes,
whether grant of licence by competent
authority is like a grant of privilege at par
with distribution of State's largess or an
indiscreet permission resulting in no interest
of the applicant. Whether its grant by an
authority depends on sheer whims and
caprice, totally unguided and unbridled
discretion of such authority or he is bound to
act reasonably, fairly, impartially and in
accordance with certain norms applicable to
all equally, treating all the persons applying
for grant of such licence without any
discrimination, favour etc.

70. The Court's observations that
nobody has a right to possess a firearm but it
is a privilege which can be granted in the
discretion of licensing authority has been
construed and interpreted by licensing
authorities as if it is their totally unbridled,
uncontrolled and absolute discretion to which
they are not answerable to anyone. In this
context, the orders are being passed
frequently day-after-day resulting in a spate
of litigation in the Courts throughout the
country. This has necissitated to find out
whether the right of equality and fairness
under Article 14 would be attracted to judge
the correctness of an order of licensing
authority when he considers application for
licence or in the matter of suspension or
cancellation of a firearm licence, already
granted.

89. Be that as it may, what discerns
from the above discussion in the context of
Sections 13, 14 and 17 of Act 1959 and right
to possess and carry a firearm may be
summarized as under:

(i) No person has a right,
fundamental or otherwise, to carry or possess
a firearm unless he is permitted to do so
under a licence granted by a competent
authority under the Act 1959.

(ii) It is a personal privilege of the
person who obtains it. The licensing authority
cannot treat it as its own privilege to
indiscreetly grant or refuse it.

(iii) Considerations on which
licence of firearm would be granted or
refused is governed strictly by Sections 13
and 14 of Act 1959.
2 All. Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
183

(iv) The factors relevant for grant
or refusal of firearm licence travel in a
distinct field. Hence the principle of audi
alteram partem is inapplicable. But once
licence is granted, any power to take away
such a right would depend on distinct
considerations and would attract the said
principle.

(v) An order refusing to grant
firearm licence can be reviewed by Courts
if passed arbitrarily, capriciously, by nonapplication
of
mind,
on
irrelevant
considerations or due to mala fide etc.

(vi) Considerations relevant for
cancellation or revocation of firearm
licence are governed by Section 17 of Act
1959.

(vii) If the licensing authority is
satisfied
prima
facie,
that
grounds
enumerated in sub section (3) (a) to (e) of
Section 17 exist, he can suspend or revoke
firearm licence immediately. Such an order
however would be "a provisional order".

(viii)
Having
passed
the
provisional order the licensing authority is
obliged to give an opportunity of show
cause to the licence holder i.e. a post
decisional hearing and he (licensee) will
have a right to submit his objection(s)
against such provisional order.

(ix) The licence holder also has
option of filing appeal against provisional
order as above under Section 18 instead of
filing objection before licensing authority.

(x) Where the licence holder
submits his objection, licensing authority
shall consider the same and pass a
reasoned order. Such an order may be
either
for
revocation
of
licence
or
suspension. In case final order passed is
that of suspension, it shall be for a
specified period.

(xi) If against provisional order,
licence holder straightaway avails remedy
of appeal, question of final order to be
passed by licensing authority may not arise
since thereafter it is the appellate order
which shall hold the field.

(xii)
Where
the
licensing
authority has any doubt about the existence
of grounds referred in Section 17(3)(a) to
(e) of Act 1959 and proceed to make
inquiry into existence of such grounds,
during this interregnum period of inquiry,
he
can
neither
exercise
power
of
suspension of firearm licence nor that of
revocation. This view has been reiterated
by Larger Bench in Rana Pratap Singh
(Supra)
after
overruling
otherwise
observations in Balram Singh (Supra).

106. Licensing and appellate
authority both have held that the applicant
could not show as to what is the special
threat which may justify a firearm licence
for their personal safety and security.
Learned Chief Standing Counsel could not
show any provision under the Act which
contemplates that firearm licence can be
granted only when a person has special
kind of threat perception to his life. The
term "special threat" is extremely vague
and even the learned Chief Standing
Counsel could not explain it. This Court
required him to tell as to how a person can
predict when, where and at what time and
from whom his person and property can be
or shall be put in peril. Such a forecast is
almost impossible. If one would have
known a definite threat and plan, as a
prudent citizen, he would immediately
approach the police making a complaint
and thereafter it shall be responsibility of
the State to take appropriate action so that
such person or planner may not achieve his
vicious goal by committing crime but when
the firearm licence is required for personal
safety
in
general,
the
individual's
perception of threat to their life and
property has to be considered taking into
account general law and order situation in
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the area, nature of his job and various
other factors. It is only a kind of keeping
oneself in the State of readiness in case
such an exigency of assault etc. on a person
and property arises and not otherwise.

107. I specifically required the
learned Chief Standing Counsel to explain
as to what particulars an applicant must
disclose along with his reason of personal
safety and security so as to constitute a
"good reason" but he failed to give even a
single instance in this regard. Very fairly he
said that even the concerned officers were
not able to tell anything.

108. In my view, the phrase "good
reasons" cannot be re-termed to make it
"extraordinary
reasons",
"very
good
reasons", "outstanding reasons", "extra
reasons", etc. When legislature has used
certain words, the same must be read,
interpreted and applied in their ordinary
sense unless such an application renders
the provision ambiguous, impracticable or
results
in
wholly
unwarranted
consequences. It is not the case of
respondents that the term "good reason", if
read in its ordinary meaning any of such
thing is likely to occur. Therefore, the
circumstances which would be covered by
phrase "good reasons", cannot be excluded
in any manner by restricting the aforesaid
phrase to a different kind of situation, and
that too, either on volition and arbitrary
discretion of individual officials or in the
hands of Government by issuing an
executive order.

109. At this stage, learned Chief
Standing Counsel instead of replying to the
specific query of the Court directly referred
the Government Circulars/orders issued
from time to time, filed as Anenxure CA-1
CA-4 to counter affidavit sworn by Sri
Hrishikesh Bhaskar Yashod, presently,
District Magistrate, Deoria, to contend that
it is in the light of guidelines provided
therein that licences are not granted to
possess or carry a firearm licence unless
the licensing authority finds with certainty
an imminent apprehension of danger to
one's life and liberty.

110. My reading of the above
Government Orders (hereinafter referred to
as "G.O.") of the Central and State
Government shows something different
than what has been contended. The earliest
G.O. is dated 03.06.1998 issued by the
Secretary, Home Department, Government
of U.P. to all Commissioners and District
Magistrates in the State of U.P. It lays
down guidelines as to within what time
proceedings shall be completed whenever
an application is given under Section 13 for
grant of firearm licence. A police report is
required to be submitted maximum within
twenty days. The aforesaid period can be
reduced by District Magistrates in their
discretion. The police is required to collect
all information as provided in Schedule III
of the Arms Rules read with Rule 51. It
shall also find out whether the applicant
has a criminal history or not. The police
station in charge shall submit report
through Senior Superintendent of Police or
Circle Officer to the District Magistrate. In
this regard, necessary instructions shall be
issued by the Senior Superintendent of
Police/Superintendent of Police and the
District Magistrate shall be apprised of the
same within a week and till no such
instructions are received from the SSP/SP;
the Station In Charge shall submit report
through seniormost police officer to the
District Magistrate. The applications sent
to Tehsil from the office of District
Magistrate shall proceed through Sub
Divisional Magistrate who will also call for
a report from Naib Tehsildar and submit his
recommendation to District Magistrate
latest within one month. Reports by police
and Tehsil shall not be forwarded through
2 All. Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
185
special messengers. Firearm applications
shall be disposed of as far as possible
within
three
months.
Members
of
Legislative
Assembly/
Council
and
Members of Parliament who have no
criminal record and have faced an incident
of heinous crime and the Government
officials, who require firearm licence for
discharge of their duties shall be issued
licence
by
licensing
authority
after
following the procedure prescribed in the
statute. Persons engaged in large scale
business and apprehend their kidnapping,
loot, robbery etc., but possess no firearm
licence, shall be considered for grant of
firearm licence as per the Government
policy.
Generally,
suitability
of
the
applicants
shall
be
examined
after
obtaining certificates of income tax and
trade tax or other documents from them
and after assessing threat perception to
them and also the factum that they have no
other weapon or method or source of
security for protection of their lives.
Applications founded on succession due to
old age of licence holder shall be examined
and appropriate order shall be passed
within one month after considering the
eligibility of the successor/heir applicant.

111. Evidently, this G.O. has not
been complied by the respondents in
passing the impugned orders, ex facie, for
the reason that while three months' period
is prescribed for disposal of firearm
application, but in the present case, the
licensing authority has taken twelve years
period in one case and more than two
years' period in the other in taking decision
without giving any justification for such
extraordinary delay.

112. The second G.O. dated
05.06.1999 of the State Government only
draws attention of District Magistrates to
Section 13(3)(b) of Act 1959 stating that
licensing
authority
shall
ensure
that
firearm licence is not issued to such
persons who do not actually require it. The
licence has to be issued only when the
licensing authority is satisfied that the
applicant
has
a
"good
reason"
for
obtaining the same. It also says that after
declaration of election, no new licence
shall be issued till the election process is
complete.

113. Then comes Government of
India's Order dated 18/20.03.2009, which
is said to have been circulated by the State
Government vide Secretary, Home's letter
dated 19.05.2009. The said G.O. also says
that firearm licence should be granted to
those persons who are found to have a
genuine need therefor. Para 3 (i) to (iii)
requires
that
application
shall
be
considered only when it complies with
requisite formalities under the statute, i.e.,
the Act and Rules framed thereunder.

114. However, para 3 (iii)(b) of
G.O.
(Central)
dated
18/20.03.2009
requires the licensing authority not to
invoke sub-section (2A) of Section 13 since
it is under review. This part of direction is
wholly misconceived inasmuch as, so long
as the statute is actually not amended, a
licensing authority cannot be required to
ignore any part thereof on the pretext of
'review' of the statute. Executive orders
cannot compel a statutory authority from
considering relevant provisions of statute
and to that extent the direction in an
executive order, would be wholly without
jurisdiction and authority.

115. Even otherwise, mere factum
of mention of "under review" in a G.O.
would not result in amendment of statute
itself unless actual amendment is made.

116. Para 3 (v) of the said G.O.
says, where the application is given for
grant of licence on threat perception basis,
the licensing authority may ensure that
there is in fact, "imminent and grave
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
threat" to the life of the applicant. In my
view, this applies to a case where an
application is submitted by an individual
giving reason of threat perception for
applying firearm licence. In such a case, he
must give details of threat perception. But
where the licence is sought on the ground
of "personal safety and security", the
situation would be different and this part of
Central G.O. dated 18/20.03.2009 would
have no application at all. There is no
other direction in the remaining part of
G.O. which may throw any light on the
question, up for consideration in the
judgment, and rest of the G.O. is of no
assistance to the respondents.

117. Then comes the last G.O.
(Central) dated 31.3.2010 which contains
certain guidelines on various aspects of grant
of firearm licence for acquisition/ possession
of arms. It is said to have been issued in view
to curb proliferation of arms in the country
and in supersession of all existing instructions.
Para (i) says that Government of India has
decided that application for grant of
prohibited bore weapons may be considered
for the following category of persons:

a) Those persons who face grave
and imminent threat to their lives by mere
reason of being residents of a geographical
area (or areas) where terrorists are most
active and/or are held to be prime 'targets' in
the eyes of terrorists and/or are known to be
inimical to the aims and objects of the
terrorists and as such face danger to their
lives.

b) Those Government officials who
by virtue of the office occupied by them and/or
the nature of duties performed by them and/or
in due discharge of their official duty have
made themselves targets in the eyes of
terrorists and are vulnerable to terrorist
attack.

c)
Those
MPs
and
MLAs
including non-officials/private persons who
by virtue of having been closely and/ or
actively
associated
with
anti-terrorist
programmes
and
policies
of
the
Government or by mere reason of their
holding views, political or otherwise, not to
the liking of the terrorists, have rendered
themselves open to attack by the terrorists.

d) The family members/kith and
kin of those who by the very nature of their
duties or performance (past or present) or
positions occupied in the Government (past
or
present)
or
even
otherwise
for
known/unknown
reasons
have
been
rendered vulnerable and have come to be
regarded by the terrorists as fit targets for
elimination."

118.
Obviously,
the
above
direction is for grant of "Prohibited Bore
Weapons" to certain category of applicants.
This Court is not concerned with this part
of the G.O. in the present set of cases. Here
we are concerned with "Non Prohibited
Bore Weapons" for which a licence is
required. Here also the G.O. says that a
person who may face or perceive grave and
imminent threat to his life, may be
considered for grant of Non Prohibited
Bore
arms
licence
after
obtaining
assessment of threat faced by the persons,
from police authorities. Here again it refers
to
such
cases
where
an
individual
specifically complains about apprehension
of grave and imminent threat to his life but
it does not talk of a situation where
somebody has applied only for safety and
security from an unanticipated, likely threat
or assault to his life and property at any
point of time for various reasons including
general crime conditions of the area
concerned. There is no other part of the
above G.O. referred by the learned Chief
Standing
Counsel
which
may
have
application to the cases in hand.

119. Thus at the pain of
repetition, I may say that my reading of
2 All. Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
187
the aforesaid Government Orders shows
that if an applicant of firearm licence is
able to show the existence of factors as
enumerated above, he must be granted a
firearm licence and should not be denied
unless there are other relevant factors
regarding his conduct etc. The aforesaid
Government Orders however, nowhere
prohibit that in cases which are otherwise
within the domain of Section 13 of the Act
and fulfil all requisites therein, still they
shall not be granted licence unless what
has
been
stated
in
the
aforesaid
Government Order(s) is found to exist. I
am constrained to observe further that any
other view of the matter would render the
aforesaid Government Orders ultra vires
of Act 1959 for the reason that even the
Government by issuing an executive order
cannot add or diminish the power of
licensing authority which has to be
exercised in accordance with Sections 13
and 14 of the Act 1959. Moreover, there is
no provision, at least, none has been
shown to this Court under Act 1959 which
empowers the Government to issue such
an executive order so as to control
statutory
consideration
of
licensing
authority. The efficacy of a statute cannot
be expanded or restricted by an executive
order.

120.
Now
there
is
a
last
submission.
Learned
Chief
Standing
Counsel apprehended that grant of firearm
licence on the mere ground of personal
safety and security, if allowed, may flood
the entire society with firearms causing
great danger to the very society itself.