Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) CONSIDERING the pure legal submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel states that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit and the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage under the Rules of this Court. It is contended that fire-arm licence was applied by petitioner which has been declined by District Magistrate on the ground that petitioner did not prove by adducing adequate evidence that his life and liberty is endangered and if so by whom. That order has been confirmed in appeal. It is contended that unless otherwise shown, every person is entitled to take care of his safety and security particularly when efficiency of State Police to provide adequate security is quite doubtful considering the total number of population vis a vis police personnel. Here both the authorities have rejected petitioner's application on a non- est ground. The orders are based on conjecture and surmises.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel having gone through the impugned order could not support the impugned orders. This Court in Pawan Kumar Jha v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(10)ADJ 782, has held that undue restriction on keeping and bearing arms ought not be based on unfounded fear. Licence is normally to be granted unless there is something adverse.;