- (1.) HEARD Sri Vinay Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he has ap ­plied for gun license in the year 1997. Since 1997 the gun license to the petitioner was never granted. The petitioner filed a writ pe ­tition in the year 2009 wherein an order was passed that the case of the petitioner may be considered in six months. In compliance of the court's order the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 8.6.2010. A plain reading of the order shows that the District Magistrate has stated that the peti ­tioner is a resident of Police Station Mauaima, District Allahabad and hence, the application should have been moved in Allahabad instead of district Pratapgarh and moreover, a crimi ­nal case was also registered against the peti ­tioner vide its No. 177A/1995 at Police Sta ­tion Mauaima. Later on the District Magistrate has given very strange reasoning for not grant ­ing the license to the petitioner. One reason given by the District Magistrate is that people of his locality already have five revolver, five rifle, five Double Barrel Ballistic License, five Single Barrel Ballistic License, hence the petitioner does not require a license. This rea ­soning is absolutely erroneous. Any number of gun license in a locality can have no bear ­ing on the rights of the petitioner. This is an individual right which can not be tested in terms of the availability of license to the oth ­ers. The petitioner has been guaranteed the rights of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India individually and this can not be said that if five people in a locality have exercised their right then the petitioner looses his right to approach the Government and get an arm license. What has been en ­sured in the Constitution of India and the Arms Act can not be diluted and taken away by this logic of the District Magistrate. An ­other reason which is more strange then the earlier one is that the petitioner is a teacher and if he owns a gun license a wrong mes ­sage will go in students. Neither the Consti ­tution of India nor the Arms Act makes out any such distinction. Arms license is given for protection of life and liberty of an indi ­vidual. He may be a doctor, engineer, teacher, student, farmer or a politician no discrimina ­tion can be made on the ground of his profes ­sion and the nomenclature for which he is known. There is procedure prescribed in the Arms Act. The District Magistrate has to get the necessary verification from the office of Superintendent of Police and then apply his mind for issuance of the license. Such an or ­der is ipso-facts untenable and unsustainable by this court.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the order dated 8.6.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh is hereby quashed. The District Magistrate is directed to take a fresh decision for granting license to the petitioner in accordance with law. A fresh decision shall be taken by the District Magistrate objectively within a pe ­riod of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.;