RAJIV SHARMA,J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case are that the petitioner is resident of Village Andapur, Police Station Phardhan, District Kheri and by profession, he is a contractor registered as such with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. On 4.6.2008, the petitioner applied for non-prohibited Revolver (Firearm) license in the requisite format before the Licensing Authority. Licensing Authority call for the reports as required under Section 13 of the Arms Act. The authorities, namely, Station House Officer and In-charge DCRB, Kheri submitted their respective reports dated 8.7.2009 and 11.8.2009. On the basis of the said report, Superintendent of Police, Kheri also submitted the report dated 26.9.2009 recommending for issuance of Arms License.The revenue authorities, i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri also vide report dated 25.6.2008 forwarded the application for grant of Arms License.When no action was taken on his application, he filed a writ petition No. 2434 (MS) of 2009 which was disposed of finally vide order dated 7.5.2009 with a direction to the Licensing Authority to decide the application for granting arms license. In compliance of this Court's Order dated 7.5.2009, the case of the petitioner was considered and the same was rejected vide orders dated 1.10.2009. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal which too was dismissed. Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders inter alia on the grounds that the Licensing Authority and the Appellate Authority have overlooked the police report furnished by the Superintendent of Police, Kheri based on the report of Station House Officer, Police Station Phardhan, District Kheri as well as the recommendations made by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri submitted in favour of the petitioner for granting fire arm license and thus committed manifest error in law in rejecting the application for granting arm license for his personal safety insofar as the petitioner has specifically shown his urgent need of the fire arm license as he mostly travels with huge amount in connection with his business. For the purposes of safety of his personal life, he is in dire need of license. It has been clarified that he has no criminal antecedents, yet the Licensing Authority has rejected the application for grant of license.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel submits that vide Government Order dated 5.6.1999, the State Government directed the District Authorities to be cautious in issuing arms license and while considering the applications for grant of license, the same should be issued only after satisfying that there is immense danger to life to the applicant and he meets all requirements and other stipulations. Learned Standing further submits that Section 13 (3) (b) specifically deals with the conditions for issuing the arms license. In the police report and the report of Revenue Department, no actual danger of life or the requirement of any personal security to the applicant has been reported. Further, in the application for Arms License, no reason has been mentioned, therefore, the nature of danger could not be substantiated and as such, the District Magistrate did not find sufficient ground for granting arms license to the petitioner which was rejected vide order dated 1.10.2009. According to him, the appeal has also rightly been rejected by the order dated 7.1.2010.;