- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 22.04.2010 (annexure 1) passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the order dated 11.08.2008 (annexure 2) passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow (respondent no. 3).
(2.) It appears that the petitioner moved an application for a revolver/pistol licence under the Arms Act. The learned District Magistrate (respondent no. 3) after considering the G.O. No. 3504 R/Cheh:-Pu-5/1999 dated 05.06.1999 found that it was not proper to issue the desired license in favour of the petitioner. The appellate authority also considered the aforesaid G.O. and formed the same opinion and held that the petitioner had no necessity of any revolver/ pistol licence, accordingly, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal.
(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court had already settled the legal position as to how the application for issue of arm's licence is to be dealt with. In the case of Bhakti Sharan v. Commissioner, 2002 2 AWC 885, this Court propounded the following principles: "3. there is nothing in the order passed by the Licensing Authority or by the appellate authority to show that the petitioner is not a person to whom fire arm should not be granted. Section 14 provides grounds for refusal of licence. Section 14(1)(b) says that the licence shall be refused (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe that (1) prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or (2) to be of unsound' mind, or (3) to by 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.";