# Rajat Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 599
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-22
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 21097 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajat-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46646
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 21 -
Fundamental right - Right to carry Firearms -
Acquisition and possession of a firearms under
the Arms Act. 1959 is only a privilege and the
right to carry firearms does not come within
the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 17)
B. Arms Act, 1959 - Fire Arms license -
Entitlement - Threat to life and liberty -
Judicial review - Scope - Held, in a case where
discretion is conferred on a public authority to
grant or refuse a licence to hold a firearm, the
scope of judicial review is limited - Where the
relevant circumstances have been taken in
consideration
and
no
extraneous
considerations were taken into account, it
would be outside the purview of judicial review
of the Court to substitute its own opinion with
the opinion of the licensing authority - Primacy
is given to the threat assessment made by the
competent authorities - Absence of danger to
life and liberty of an applicant for firearms
license, can be a valid and lawful reason for
refusal of the firearm license - Mahipat Singh's
case followed and Bhoore Singh's case, Indal
Singh's case, Kammod Singh's case were held
per incuriam - High Court found no infirmity in
the order of licensing authority in refusing to
grant the licence. (Para 47, 51, 55 and 61)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,797 of 65,404. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39797 for what follows._

11 All. Rajat Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
599
pond. The petitioner definitely had no right to
claim for getting allotment. However, the Court
feels that the petitioner has been wronged in the
sense that he had been directed to deposit the bid
amount on 18.10.2019 which was also deposited
by him on 24.10.2019. This amount, the Court
definitely feels, is required to be returned to the
petitioner with an interest of 12 per cent per
annum.

7. The auction may now take place again
by the 30th of November, 2021. It is further
provided that the cost of re-auction as per
Section 189 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
shall be borne by the bidder Rakesh who had
defaulted. The amount along with interest which
had to be returned to the petitioner shall,
however, be returned by the State Exchequer.
The amount shall be reimbursed to the petitioner
before the next auction takes place.

8. With these observations/directions, the
writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2021)11ILR A599
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 21097 of 2021

Rajat Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India - Article 21 -
Fundamental right - Right to carry Firearms -
Acquisition and possession of a firearms under
the Arms Act. 1959 is only a privilege and the
right to carry firearms does not come within
the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 17)
B. Arms Act, 1959 - Fire Arms license -
Entitlement - Threat to life and liberty -
Judicial review - Scope - Held, in a case where
discretion is conferred on a public authority to
grant or refuse a licence to hold a firearm, the
scope of judicial review is limited - Where the
relevant circumstances have been taken in
consideration
and
no
extraneous
considerations were taken into account, it
would be outside the purview of judicial review
of the Court to substitute its own opinion with
the opinion of the licensing authority - Primacy
is given to the threat assessment made by the
competent authorities - Absence of danger to
life and liberty of an applicant for firearms
license, can be a valid and lawful reason for
refusal of the firearm license - Mahipat Singh's
case followed and Bhoore Singh's case, Indal
Singh's case, Kammod Singh's case were held
per incuriam - High Court found no infirmity in
the order of licensing authority in refusing to
grant the licence. (Para 47, 51, 55 and 61)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Arvind Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2012 76 ACC
457
2. Ram Chandra Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & anr.; 2010
(69) ACC 490
3. Brij Nandan Singh Vs St.of U.P. & ors.; 2011 (75)
ACC 331
4. Writ C No. 17507 of 2019; Bhoore Singh Vs St. of
U.P. & anr. decided on 21.05.2019
5. Wrti C No. 17833 of 2019; Indal Singh Vs St. of
U.P. & anr. decided on 23.05.2019
6. Writ C No. 39541 of 2019; Kammod Vs St. of U.P
and other decided on 07.12.2019
7. St.of U.P. & ors. Vs Mahipat Singh; 2014 (2) ADJ
134
8. Kailash Nath & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; AIR 1985
All 291
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. Balram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 1989 (87) ALJ
23
10. Ganesh Chandra Bhatt Vs D.M.; AIR 1993 All 291
11. Writ Petition No. 29963 of 1993; Devendera
Pratap Singh Vs D.M. decided on 27.10.1993
12. Rana Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P.; 1996 CriL.J. 665
13. Misc. Bench No. 3268 of 2012; Jitendra Singh Vs
St. of U.P. decided on 07.10.2013
14. Hari Shanker Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2008 (4) ADJ
518
15. Parvez Ahmad Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2006 (55)
ACC 669
16. Writ C No. 64953 of 2013; Mahipat Singh Vs St. of
U.P. & ors. decided on 11.12.2013
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. The petitioner applied for a fire arms
license by applications dated 03.07.2020 and
07.06.2021.

2. By the impugned order dated 05.07.2021
the licensing authority/ District Mainpuri has
declined to grant the arms license to the
petitioner.

3. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that the
denial of the arms license to the petitioner on the
footing that the petitioner does not faces any
imminent threat to his life is arbitrary and
illegal. He relied on various judgments rendered
by this Court in Arvind Kumar Vs. State of
U.P. and others reported at 2012 76 ACC 457,
Ram Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and
another reported at 2010 (69) ACC 490; Brij
Nandan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others
reported at 2011 (75) ACC 331 and also the
judgments rendered by this Court on 21.05.2019
in Bhoore Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another
Writ C No. 17507 of 2019, judgment rendered
on 23.05.2019 in Indal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and another Wrti C No. 17833 of 2019 and the
judgment of this Court rendered on 07.12.2019
in Kammod Vs. State of U.P and other Writ
C No. 39541 of 2019.

4. Per contra learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel Sri J.P.N Raj, submits that the
petitioner did not satisfy the criteria for grant of
arms license as laid down in the Government
Order dated 08.11.2018. It is further contended
that the judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner have been rendered by
various Single Judges' of this Court. The ratio of
the aforesaid judgments is contrary to the law
laid down by learned Division Bench of this
Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Mahipat
Singh reported at 2014 (2) ADJ 134. The
judgment of the learned Division Bench was not
referred to the learned Single Judges' in Bhoore
Singh (supra), Kammod Singh (supra) and
Indal Singh (supra). Applicable provisions of
the Arms Act and Arms Rules as well as the
Government Order dated 08.11.2018 have not
been considered in the judgments cited in
support of the petitioner's case. The said
judgments rendered by the learned Single
Judges' are per incuriam.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. To process the application for grant of
firearm license submitted by the petitioner,
reports were called for by the licensing authority
from the relevant government departments,
namely, the revenue and the police authorities
The said reports are extracted in the impugned
order dated 05.07.2021.

7. The report submitted by the S.D.M.,
Karhal, dated 27.1.2021 records that the
applicant is not victim of a crime, a trader, an
industrialist, a serviceman, a member of
paramilitary forces, a MLA, a MLC, a MP or an
Enforcement Officer. The report on behalf of the
police authorities submitted by the Inspector Incharge of Police Station, Karhal on 27.01.2021
asserts that no criminal case has been registered
11 All. Rajat Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
601
against the applicant Rajat Yadav. Analysing the
threat perception to the applicant Rajat Yadav,
the said police report opined that the applicant
does not face any threat to life or property from
any individual. The applicant does not have a
genuine requirement for possession of a firearm.
The report of the Inspector of the concerned
police station was duly approved by the C.O,
Karhal, in his report dated 08.02.2021. The
Additional Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri
also accorded approval to the report submitted
by the S.H.O and the C.O.

8. After agreeing with the reports
submitted by various police functionaries, the
Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri made the
recommendation that the applicant was not
entitled for grant of arms license.

9. The eligibility of the petitioner for grant
of arms license was examined in the light of
enquiry reports submitted by various competent
authorities in the impugned order dated
05.07.2021. The petitioner did not fall in various
categories of individuals entitled for grant of
license by virtue of holding an office or
discharging specific official functions which
could entail threat to life.

10. The licensing authority also referenced
the Government Order dated 08.11.2018 which
categorically
postulates
that
only
those
individuals who face a grave threat or imminent
danger to their lives or there was real possibility
of threat to their lives were entitled for
consideration of their applications for grant of
license.
The
Government
Order
dated
08.11.2018 also contemplates that the licensing
authority will have to ensure that licenses should
not be issued to persons who do not have any
real requirement.

11. The licensing authority independently
agreed with the threat perception reports
submitted
by
the
police
authorities
and
recommendation of the revenue authorities. The
licensing authority found that the petitioner does
not face any imminent or forseeable threat to his
life or property. The licensing authority in the
impugned order recorded that the petitioner does
not satisfy the eligibility criteria laid down in the
said Government Order for grant of firearm
license and does not have a genuine requirement
for a firearm.

12. On the foot of this reasoning the
licensing authority rejected the application of the
petitioner for grant of arms license by the
impugned order dated 05.07.2021.

13. The regulation of arms ownership in
modern India has a chequered history. In British
India the arms laws confined the ownership of
arms to a select elite. Even Mahatma Gandhi
wanted the said discriminatory laws to be
repealed after achieving independence. The Arms
Act, 1959 enacted by the Parliament in
independent India, discarded the exclusivity in
ownership of arms and introduced transparency in
the grant of arms licenses. But what is noteworthy
is that the Indian Parliament did not liberalise the
grant of fire arms licenses, but continued with the
policy of restrictive gun laws. The Arms Act,
1959 read with Arms Rules, 2016, lay down a
transparent process for grant of fire arms licenses
and tightly regulate ownership of arms.

14. The prevalence of fire arms in a society
and its impact on state building and as a cause of
State breakdown has been examined in various
studies.

15. Commenting on the phenomena of
global flow of guns and failure of States, Pratap
Bhanu Mehta, writes that "supply of weapons
matters, and unless controlled acquires an
autonomous dynamic".

16. The restrictive regime of arms license
possession in India under the Arms Act, 1959
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
faced constitutional challenge before this Court.
A five Judges Full Bench of this Court in
Kailash Nath and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others1 was called upon to decide the question
whether the possession and acquisition of a
firearm came within the ambit of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.

17. The learned five Judges Full Bench in
Kailash Nath (supra) held that acquisition and
possession of the firearm under the Arms Act,
1959 is nothing more than a privilege and set its
face against the contention that possession and
acquisition of firearms was a fundamental right
flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. by holding thus:

""3................. 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
Art. 21 of the Constitution which postulates the
fundamental right of protection of life and
personal liberty. It deals with deprivation of life
and as held in Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950
SCR 88 : (AIR 1950 SC 27). Art. 21 is attracted
only in cases of deprivation in the sense of total
loss and that accordingly has no application to
the case of a mere restriction upon the right to
move freely or to the grant of licence for
possession and acquisition of firearms which
stands on an entirely different footing from the
licence to carry on a trade or occupation. "

18. A Full Bench of this Court in Balram
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others2 reiterated
that grant of license for possessing of firearm is
only a privilege to be granted by the State:

"13. In this connection, another aspect
of the matter cannot be lost sight of. Obtaining
of a licence for possessing a fire-arm has to be
held a privilege only. No civil consequences
follow. Even if we were to hold that
consequences do follow as it may in proceedings
concerning licences issued under Section 4 or 5
of the Act, the security of public peace or public
safety would be of paramount importance........"

(emphasis supplied)

19. Subsequently there was a departure
from the above position of law. The cleavage in
judicial opinion in regard to the nature of the
right to carry firearms opened when a learned
Single Judge of this Court in Ganesh Chandra
Bhatt Vs. District Magistrate3 construed the
right to carry firearm as one flowing from
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

"44. In my opinion the right to carry
non-prohibited firearms is part of Article 21 of
the Constitution, for to hold otherwise would
amount to keeping good and peace loving
citizens defenceless while the criminal are well
armed. This would be wholly arbitrary and
unreasonable. In these days when law and order
has broken down it is only an armed man who
can lead a life of dignity and self respect. No
criminal or gangster can dare to assault or
threaten such a person for fear of retaliation.
Since the word ''life' in Article 21 has been held
by the Supreme Court to mean a life of dignity
(as discussed above), the right to carry nonprohibited firearms must be deemed to be
included in Article 21."

20. Discordant judicial views on the
aforesaid issue became manifest when a learned
11 All. Rajat Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
603
Division Bench judgment of this Court in
Devendera
Pratap
Singh
Vs.
District
Magistrate4, held that the right to carry nonprohibitory firearm was vested in a citizen by
virtue of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The proposition laid down in Ganesh Chandra
Bhatt (supra) and Devendra Pratap Singh
(supra) diverged from the holdings of in
Kailash Nath (supra) and Balram Singh
(supra).

21. Consequently, the matter was referred
yet again to a Special Bench of this Court
comprising of five learned Judges in Rana
Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh5 for
an authoritative pronouncement on the issue.

22. The learned five Judges Full Bench of
this Court in Rana Pratap Singh (supra)
essentially affirmed the opinion of this court in
Kailash Nath (supra) and held that obtaining a
firearms license for acquisition and possession
of a firearms under the Arms Act. 1959 is only a
privilege and the right to carry firearms does not
come within the purview of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The following proposition
enunciated in Rana Pratap Singh (supra)
finally settled the controversy :

"33. Turning now to the reference
pertaining to the grant of an arms licence, there
is the judgment of M. Katju, J. in Ganesh
Chandra Bhatt v. The District Magistrate,
Almora (1993(30) ACC 204) where the learned
Judge held that the right to carry non-prohibited
firearms was part of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India since he said the word 'life'
in Articles 21 has been held by the Supreme
Court to be a life of dignity. It was, in this
behalf, his view that is only an armed man who
can lead a life of dignity and self respect.

34. The learned Judge went on to lay
down as a legal proposition that "Whenever an
application for a licence for a non-prohibited
arm is made and it is not disposed of within
three months it will be deemed to have been
allowed on the expiry of three months". Not
only this, but a general mandamus was also
issued "to all concerned authorities that
whenever any application for licence under the
Arms Act is made the same must be processed
and decided within three months, and the normal
rule must be grant of the licence in the case of
non-prohibited firearms, and the refusal should
be exception and for strong reasons to be
recorded in writing after giving opportunity of
hearing to the applicant, and such reasons for
rejection
must
be
communicated
to
the
application
within
three
months
of
the
application. The licence should also be normally
not restricted to the district or State except for
special reasons to be recorded in writing and
communicated to the applicant."

35. Both these views, namely, that if
no order is passed on an application for an arms
licence within three months from the date
thereof it shall be deemed to have been granted
and that the right to carry a non-prohibited
weapon was a right guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution, were later given the seal of
approval by the Division Bench in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.29963 of 1993 (Devendra
Pratap Singh Vs. District Magistrate), decided
on October 27, 1993, of which M. Katju, J. was
a member.

36. Strong reservations were expressed
by Bahuguna, J. in Ajai Singh's case to the
rationale of the judgments in Ganesh Chandra
Bhatt, 1993 (30) ACC 204 and Devendra
Pratap's cases (supra) Civ. Misc. Writ Pet.
No.29963 of 1993, D/-27-10-93 and he
consequently sought their reconsideration by a
larger Bench.

37. A reading of the relevant statutory
provisions of the Arms Act would show that no
time limit has been prescribed therein for the
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consideration of an application for the grant of
an arms licence, nor is there any provision to the
effect that if the application is not finally
decided within a particular time frame, the
licensing authority shall be bound to grant the
licence, or that the licence shall be deemed to
have been granted. We, therefore, cannot but
concur with the view of Vijay Bahuguna, J. that
had the intention of the Legislature been such,
specific provisions would undoubtedly have
been made for it in the Act. On the face of it,
therefore, the provisions of the Arms Act cannot
be so construed as to provide for a deeming
provisions for the grant of a licence merely on
the expiry of a particular period of time.......

38. Equally unsustainable is the view
that the right to carry non-prohibited fired arms
comes within the purview of Art. 21 of the
Constitution, nor indeed one can we subscribe to
the theory as expounded by M. Katju, J. In
Ganesh Chandra Bhatt's case 1993(30) ACC
204, that it is only an armed man who can lead a
life of dignity and self respect. As rightly held in
Kailash Nath's case 1985 AWC 493: AIR 1985
All 291 (supra), obtaining of a licence for
acquisition and possession of fire arms under the
Arms Act is no more than a privilege. M.N.
Shukla, C.J. in this behalf, further observed "No
doubt, a citizen may apply for grant of a licence
of fire arms 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. It deals with deprivation of life
and as held in Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950
SCR 88 Article 21 is attracted only in cases of
deprivation in the sense of total loss and that
accordingly has no application to the case of a
mere restriction upon the right to move freely or
to the grant of licence for possession and
acquisition of fire arms which stands on an
entirely different footing from the licence to
carry on a trade or occupation". M.K. Katju, J. in
Ganesh Chandra Bhatt's case (1993 (30) ACC
204, brushed aside this observation by fastening
upon it the label of "per incuriam". On the face
of it, this represents a glaring instance of a
learned Single Judge, as they say "Seeking to
win the game by sweeping all the chessmen of
the table" by so blatantly disregarding a binding
judgment of a Full Bench of five Judges, by
merely saying it is per incuriam, when it was
clearly not so.

42. It will thus be seen that branding
the observation in Kailash Nath's case (supra),
with regard to the right to carry firearms and it
not coming under Article 21 of the Constitution,
as being merely per incuriam was not founded
upon any law or precedent and was, therefore,
wholly unwarranted, rather it constitutes a
striking instance of the manner in which the per
incuriam rule never can or should be applied. It
follows, therefore, that the right to carry firearms
does not come within the purview of Article 21
of the Constitution. We are, thus, again
constrained to hold that both Ganesh Chandra
Bhatt's case 1993 (30) ACC 204 as also
Devendra Pratap Singh's case Civil Mis. Writ
Petition No.29963 of 1993, D/-7-10-1993, do
not lay down correct law and are consequently
hereby over-ruled."

23. A Division Bench of this Court in
Jitendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.6 judicially
noticed killing of a number of innocent persons
in celebratory firing, the proliferation of arms in
the society, and flaunting of weapons in public
as a status symbol.

24. The Division Bench of this Court in
Jitendra Singh (supra) found in meticulous
detail the consequences of freely arming
citizens:

"Principal Secretary, Home, however,
has filed an affidavit today which displays a
11 All. Rajat Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
605
very shocking state of affairs. According to
Principal Secretary, Home, in State of U.P.
11,22,844 arms licence have been issued to
11,02,113 persons. 11,04,701 arms have been
issued to the licence holders. Out of which,
3,81,966 for SBBL and 336954 for DBBL guns
have been issued. 1,68,669 licence for rifles,
1,49,065 for revolvers, 54,035 for pistols, 96 for
sport guns, 525 for Carbine and 13,882 licences
have been issued for other weapons.

It is further stated that in the State of
U.P. 35,698 persons are having two arm
licences, 5959 persons are having three licences
and 55 persons are having more than three arm
licences. In para 8 of the affidavit it is stated that
5730 persons are holding arm licences against
whom criminal trials are pending while 1061
persons are having licences against whom cases
are registered at various police stations.

Above figures are appalling.

It is submitted at the bar that total
number of licence holders in the State are far in
excess with the arms available to the Police
force. Entire 2.13 lakh force of State Police, has
2.25 lakh weapons with them. Thus, the private
citizens possess weapons more than five times to
the force of State. This does not include the
figures of unauthorized arms.

It is further stated at the bar quoting
figures from NCRB that more than half of the
killings from firing, in the country, are reported
from Uttar Pradesh. Number of applications
pending for arms licence, is not on record. It was
informed that in Lucknow district alone nearly
50 thousands ripe applications are pending for
arms licence.

Experience shows that arms licences
are procured merely for flaunting the status as
it has become status symbol. Needless to say
that arm licence is not a right rather it is
statutory privilege available with the State.
Arming society to such an extent sends danger
bell. In fact, the State is sitting on Volcano.
Large number of persons with criminal
backgrounds with licenced arms including 525
Carbine pose a serious threat to the tranquility
and order of the society.

Figures given by Principal Secretary
show that more than 41,000 persons are
having more than one licence. Fifty five
persons are having more than three licences
while Section 2(3) of the Arms Act limits the
number to three. It is not clear as to what
action has been taken by the State Government
against the persons having more than three
arms licence.

2,25,000 weapons with Police force
faced with more than 11,00,000 authorized
arms with citizens of Uttar Pradesh in addition
to score of illegal arms, maintenance of law
and order is bound to be a casualty."

25. This Court in Jitendra Singh
(supra) looked askance at the inability of the
State to regulate the grant of licenses:

"There is no evidence to establish
that heavily arming citizens has shown any
improvement in situation. Even otherwise
maintenance of law and order is foremost duty
of State and arming people is no alternative. In
fact, State has come into existence because of
need of protection to its subjects. No proposal
has come foreward from the respondents to
regulate this uncalled for and unproductive
generosity of State."

26. After recording the magnitude of the
problem of arming a society to its hilt and its
"deleterious
cascading
effect",
the
State
Government in Jitendra Singh (supra) was
directed to frame a policy in regard to grant of
arms licence and for action against the persons
606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with criminal antecedents possessing the arms
licenses.

27. It would also be apposite to refer to
some of the similar concerns voiced by a learned
Single Judge of this Court in Hari Shanker Vs.
State of U.P. and others7:

"7. The Arms Act provides for a
procedure for grant of licence for the fire arm. If
the licensing authority is satisfied under Section
13(3)(c) of the Act that a person, who has applied
for the licence, has good reason to obtain for the
same, he may grant licence. In other case, the
licensing authority may reject the application. The
subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate in
such case cannot be put to any straight jacket
formula.

8. The Court takes judicial notice of the
fact that in the State of U.P., lakhs of fire arms
licences have been conceded by indiscriminate
grant to the persons for asking, including those
who have affiliations to political parties and also
those who have long criminal records. The Court
also takes judicial notice of the fact that the
persons,
possessing
fire
arm
licences
are
displaying these fire arms openly in public places
including schools, colleges, hospitals, Courts,
railway platforms and other places which creates a
sense of fear in the society. The possession of a
fire arm has become a source of forced respect and
acquisition of power in the society.

9. The licensing authorities have granted
licences virtually to everyone who applies to them
to possess the fire arm. The peaceful existence of
the citizens in the society is threatened by such
reckless executive action. It is often found that the
licensing authorities are not exercising their
powers for the purposes for which it is given to
him.

10. A person may need a licence for
his self defence or for the defence of his
property. The nature of the job of the person
may also require him to possess the fire arm. In
all such cases the facts, which constitute the
special circumstances, are to be examined by the
licensing authority. These circumstances need
not be put to any objective test. There may be
cases where a person may be the witness of a
heinous/crime and is under threat or the nature
of his occupation may require him to keep the
fire arm. The licensing authority must also look
into the back-ground and character of the
person, and the type of fire arm required by such
person before grant of licence. The fact, that a
person is a contractor and alleges to have some
unspecified enmity, is not a sufficient ground to
grant fire arm licence.

11. The writ petition is dismissed with
observations that the State Government shall
issue necessary directions to all the licensing
authorities to strictly adhere to the provisions of
the Arms Act for grant of fire arm licences and
make obligatory for all the licensing authority to
give adequate and special reasons based on
material on record for such grant or the renewal
of existing licences."

28. Observations to similar effect were
made in Parvez Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and
others8.

29. Stage is now set to examine the
relevant provisions of the Arms Act, 19599 and
the Arms Rules, 201610 relating to grant/refusal
of firm arms license.

30. Restrictive nature of the legislative
intent regarding acquisition and possession of
firearms is evident in Section 3(1) of the Arms
Act, 1959 which contemplates that no person
shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry
any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in
this behalf a licence issued in accordance with
the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the
Rules
framed
thereunder.
The
provisions
11 All. Rajat Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
607
relating to grant of licenses are contained in
Chapter III of the Act.

31. Section 13 of the Act deals with the
manner of grant of licenses and is 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 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."

32. Section 14 of the Act provides for
refusal of licenses and speaks thus:

"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
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

33. The scheme of the provisions of the
Arms Act, 1959 for grant and refusal of firearms
licences was analysed by a learned Division
Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and others
Vs. Mahipat Singh11 thus:

"16(3)....Clause (a) of sub-section (1)
of Section 14 would thus indicate that a licence
under Section 3, Section 4 or Section 5 shall be
refused where it is required in respect of any
prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition. In
any other case under Chapter-II, a licence shall
be refused where the licensing authority has
reason to believe that the person who requires a
licence is prohibited by the Act or by any other
law from acquiring, having in his possession or
carrying any arms or ammunition; or that he is
of unsound mind or unfit for any reason for a
licence under the Act. Similarly, a licence shall
be refused where the licensing authority deems it
necessary for the security of the public peace or
public safety to refuse the grant of such licence.
In other words, the effect of Section 14 is to
provide a catalogue of circumstances in which
notwithstanding anything in Section 13, a
licence shall be refused. This does not mean that
in all other cases a licence must necessarily be
granted. Section 14 specifies the grounds when a
licence shall be refused, but even otherwise,
under Section 13, the licensing authority is duty
bound to apply its mind to all the relevant facts
and circumstances in determining as to whether
the licence should be granted or refused. In those
cases which would fall within the ambit of
Section 14, the licensing authority must
necessarily refuse the licence."

34. Provisions of the Rules which have a
bearing on the issue shall now be discussed.

35. Rule 11 of the Rules provides for the
application for grant of license and its contents.
The application has to be submitted in various
statutory forms Form A1 to A14 as applicable
to the category of license applied. Necessary
information has to be disclosed in the
application
and
the
same
has
to
be
accompanied by supporting documents required
for processing the application. Rule 11 also
mandates the applicant not to suppress any
factual information or furnish any wrong
information in the application form. Column 18
to Form A1 requires the applicant to detail
claims for special consideration for obtaining
the license.

SCHEDULE III

PART II

Application Forms
11 All. Rajat Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
609
Form A-1

(for individuals)

Forms of application for an arms license in
Forms II, III and IV

(see Rule 11)
18
Claims
for
special
consideration
for
obtaining the license,
if any
(attach
documentary
evidence)

Declaration:

I hereby declare that the above particulars
given in the application are true, complete and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I
understand that in the event of any information
being found false or incorrect at any stage, I am
liable to be proceeded against and action taken
under the relevant provisions of the Arms Act,
1959, the Arms Rules, 2016, and other central
enactments or the law for the time being in
force.

Place......

Date.....

Signature/ThumbImpression of applicant

36. Rule 12 of the Rules cites the
obligations of the licensing authority granting a
license. The provision also details categories of
persons whose application for grant of licence
may be considered:

"12.
Obligation
of
licensing
authority in certain cases.-

(2) For grant of a license for the
restricted arms or ammunition specified in
Category I(b) and I(c) in Schedule I, the
licensing authority, may consider the application
of-

(a) any person who faces grave and
anticipated threat to his life by reason of-

(i) being resident of a geographical
area or areas where militants terrorists or
extremists are most active; or

(ii) being the prime target in the eyes
of militants, terrorists or extremists; or

(iii) facing danger to his life or being
inimical to the aims and objectives of the
militants, terrorists or extremists; or

(b) any Government official who by
virtue of the office occupied by him or by the
nature of duty performed by him and / or in due
discharge of his official duty is exposed to
anticipated risk of his life; or

(c) any Member of Parliament or
Member of Legislative Assembly, who by virtue
of having close or active association with antimilitant,
anti-terrorist
or
anti-extremist
programmes and policies of the Government or
by mere reason of holding views, political or
otherwise, exposed himself to anticipated risk of
his life; or

(d) any family member or kith and kin
of a person who by the very nature of his duty or
performance (past or present) or position
occupied in the Government (past or present) or
even otherwise for known or unknown reasons
exposed himself to anticipated rise to his life; or

(e) any other person, for any legitimate
and genuine reason, to the satisfaction of the
licensing authority, by passing of a speaking
order in this regard:
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Provided that before grant of a license
under this sub-rule, the licensing authority based
on the recommendations of the District
Magistrate and of the State Government
concerned and on examination of the police
report
and
after
conducting
a
separate
verification from its own source, shall satisfy
itself that the applicant requires such licence.

(3) For grant of license for the
permissible arms or ammunition specified in
Category III in Schedule I, and without
prejudice to the provisions contained in clause
(a) of sub-section (3) of Section 13, the licensing
authority, based on the police report and on his
own assessment, may consider the applications
of-

(a) any person who by the very nature
of his business, profession, job or otherwise has
genuine requirement to protect his life and/ or
property; or

(b) any dedicated sports person being
active members for the last two years, of a
shooting club or a rifle association, licensed
under these rules and who wants to pursue
sports shooting for target practice in a
structured learning process; or

(c) any person in service or having
served in the Defence Forces, Central Armed
Police Forces or the State Police Force and has
genuine requirement to protect his life and/ or
property."

37. Regime for grant of arms licence so
envisaged in the Act and the Rules framed
thereunder was construed by this Court in
State of U.P. Vs. Mahipat Singh (supra) in
the following manner:

"16...In considering the grant of a
licence, the authority is duty bound to
consider such facts as may be personal to the
applicant as well as the impact of the grant of
the licence on the safety and security of others
which may be impinged by the grant of the
licence. Ultimately, the governing test is
whether the public interest in the maintenance
of law and order and public peace or safety
would be enhanced or retarded by the grant of
a fire-arm licence.

17.