Sandeep Pandey v. State of U.P.) filed under section

4. In this view of the matter and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter will be heard finally at the admission stage, without calling any counter affidavit.

5. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner on

12.11.2012 submitted an application for grant of firearm license before the respondent No.3/District Magistrate, Mahoba which was rejected by the respondent No.2 vide its order dated 02.12.2020 on the ground that the petitioner has no threat of life or any enmity or apprehension of danger of his life, therefore the arm license cannot be granted. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed appeal which was also rejected by th respondent No.3 on the same ground. Hence the present petition.

6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no criminal case has been ever registered against the petitioner and the entire character of the petitioner is neat and clean. It is argued that the Station House Officer concerned has submitted report in his favour. It is further stated in paragraph 7 of the petition that Sub Divisional Magistrate also submitted report in favour of the petitioner mentioning that Tehsil and Police report has been obtained and forwarded before the respondent No.3. It is argued that when the application for grant of firearm license dated 12.11.2012 was not decided, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ C No.12949 of 2012 (Sandeep Pandey Vs.State of U.P. and another) and this Court vide order dated 31.08.2020 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with the direction to respondent No.3/District Magistrate, Mahoba to decide the aforesaid application within three months. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent No.3 decided the aforesaid application vide its order dated 02.12.2020 by which application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has no threat of life or any enmity or apprehension of danger of his life. The relevant portion of the order dated

02.12.2020 reads as follows:- आववेदक / ययाचची नवे आववेदन प्ቔ मम जयानमयाल ककी ससुरकया कवे ललए शኚᮌ लयाईसमस ्ቚदयान करनवे कया उलवेख ककयया हहै। आय ्ቚमयाण प्ቔ कवे अनसुसयार आववेदक / ययाचची ककी मयालसक आय 6,667/-रू० हहै। पसुललस अधचीकक महहोबया ककी आख्यया मम आववेदक / ययाचची कया ककसची सवे श्ቔसुतया यया झगडया नहीሻ हहोनवे एवव आववेदक/ययाचची दयारया पसुललस थयानवे मम जयान सवे मयारनवे ककी धमककी कवे सम्बन्ध मम कहोई कशकयायत रलजस्टरर नहीሻ करयायवे जयानवे कया उलवेख हहै। आववेदक / ययाचची दयारया कहोई ऐसया पसुकቖኌत सयाቌኚय ्ቚस्तसुत नहीሻ ककयया गयया, लजससवे यह ्ቚमयाकणत हहो सकवे कक उसकहो ककस ्ቚकयार सवे एवव ककस व्यकሹኌ सवे जयानमयाल कया खतरया हहै तथया इस सम्बन्ध मम पसुललस अधचीकक महहोबया दयारया भची अपनची आख्यया मम कहोई उलवेख नहीሻ ककयया गयया हहै, लजससवे आववेदक / ययाचची कहो ककसची ्ቚकयार सवे जचीवन भय कया खतरया पररलककत हहो। तद्नसुसयार आववेदक/ययाचची कहो शኚᮌ लयाईसमस कनगरत ककयया जयानया सम्यकक रूप सवे उकचत नहीሻ हहै।

7. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred the Appeal No.00755/2020, Computerized No.C202007000000755 (Sandeep Pandey versus State of U.P.) which was also rejected by respondent No.2 vide its order dated 02.12.2020 on the same ground.

8. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for grant of firearm license cannot be rejected only on the ground that there is no threat of life or any enmity or apprehension of danger of his life. It is argued that the firearm license 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 per-son and taking, adopting and pursuing such means as are necessary for such safety and security, is a fundamental right of every per son. 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 support of his arguments, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments passd by this Court in the case of Shiv Murat Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2004 (54) ALR 291, Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (8) ADJ 170 and Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (3) ADJ 109 (LB).

9. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel for the respondent that the order impugned has been rightly passed by the respondents and does not call for any interference by this Court.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. 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 per son 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 license to an individual would demonstratively prejudice or adversely affect the maintenance of law and order including peace and tranquillity of the society, ordinarily such right shall not be denied.

12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that order passed by the order dated 16.03.2022 passed by respondent no.2/Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Region, Chitrakoot in Appeal no.00755/2020, Computerized No.C202007000000755 (Sandeep Pandey versus State of U.P.) filed under section 18 Arms Act as well as order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.3/District Magistrate, Mahoba are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.

13. The writ petition is allowed.

14. The respondent No.3 is directed to pass fresh order within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 saqlain SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. In this view of the matter and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter will be heard finally at the admission stage, without calling any counter affidavit.

5. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner on

12.11.2012 submitted an application for grant of firearm license before the respondent No.3/District Magistrate, Mahoba which was rejected by the respondent No.2 vide its order dated 02.12.2020 on the ground that the petitioner has no threat of life or any enmity or apprehension of danger of his life, therefore the arm license cannot be granted. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed appeal which was also rejected by th respondent No.3 on the same ground. Hence the present petition.

6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no criminal case has been ever registered against the petitioner and the entire character of the petitioner is neat and clean. It is argued that the Station House Officer concerned has submitted report in his favour. It is further stated in paragraph 7 of the petition that Sub Divisional Magistrate also submitted report in favour of the petitioner mentioning that Tehsil and Police report has been obtained and forwarded before the respondent No.3. It is argued that when the application for grant of firearm license dated 12.11.2012 was not decided, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ C No.12949 of 2012 (Sandeep Pandey Vs.State of U.P. and another) and this Court vide order dated 31.08.2020 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with the direction to respondent No.3/District Magistrate, Mahoba to decide the aforesaid application within three months. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent No.3 decided the aforesaid application vide its order dated 02.12.2020 by which application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has no threat of life or any enmity or apprehension of danger of his life. The relevant portion of the order dated

02.12.2020 reads as follows:- आववेदक / ययाचची नवे आववेदन प्ቔ मम जयानमयाल ककी ससुरकया कवे ललए शኚᮌ लयाईसमस ्ቚदयान करनवे कया उलवेख ककयया हहै। आय ्ቚमयाण प्ቔ कवे अनसुसयार आववेदक / ययाचची ककी मयालसक आय 6,667/-रू० हहै। पसुललस अधचीकक महहोबया ककी आख्यया मम आववेदक / ययाचची कया ककसची सवे श्ቔसुतया यया झगडया नहीሻ हहोनवे एवव आववेदक/ययाचची दयारया पसुललस थयानवे मम जयान सवे मयारनवे ककी धमककी कवे सम्बन्ध मम कहोई कशकयायत रलजस्टरर नहीሻ करयायवे जयानवे कया उलवेख हहै। आववेदक / ययाचची दयारया कहोई ऐसया पसुकቖኌत सयाቌኚय ्ቚस्तसुत नहीሻ ककयया गयया, लजससवे यह ्ቚमयाकणत हहो सकवे कक उसकहो ककस ्ቚकयार सवे एवव ककस व्यकሹኌ सवे जयानमयाल कया खतरया हहै तथया इस सम्बन्ध मम पसुललस अधचीकक महहोबया दयारया भची अपनची आख्यया मम कहोई उलवेख नहीሻ ककयया गयया हहै, लजससवे आववेदक / ययाचची कहो ककसची ्ቚकयार सवे जचीवन भय कया खतरया पररलककत हहो। तद्नसुसयार आववेदक/ययाचची कहो शኚᮌ लयाईसमस कनगरत ककयया जयानया सम्यकक रूप सवे उकचत नहीሻ हहै।

7. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred the Appeal No.00755/2020, Computerized No.C202007000000755 (Sandeep Pandey versus State of U.P.) which was also rejected by respondent No.2 vide its order dated 02.12.2020 on the same ground.

8. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for grant of firearm license cannot be rejected only on the ground that there is no threat of life or any enmity or apprehension of danger of his life. It is argued that the firearm license 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 per-son and taking, adopting and pursuing such means as are necessary for such safety and security, is a fundamental right of every per son. 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 support of his arguments, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments passd by this Court in the case of Shiv Murat Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2004 (54) ALR 291, Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (8) ADJ 170 and Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (3) ADJ 109 (LB).

9. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel for the respondent that the order impugned has been rightly passed by the respondents and does not call for any interference by this Court.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. 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 per son 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 license to an individual would demonstratively prejudice or adversely affect the maintenance of law and order including peace and tranquillity of the society, ordinarily such right shall not be denied.

12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that order passed by the order dated 16.03.2022 passed by respondent no.2/Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Region, Chitrakoot in Appeal no.00755/2020, Computerized No.C202007000000755 (Sandeep Pandey versus State of U.P.) filed under section 18 Arms Act as well as order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.3/District Magistrate, Mahoba are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.

13. The writ petition is allowed.

14. The respondent No.3 is directed to pass fresh order within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 saqlain SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad