Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 19th June, 1997, whereby the State Government has refused to grant arms dealer's licence to the petitioner under Form No. XI, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure '1' to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Jain argued that considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner has already possessed of a licence under the Arms Act and is running his business in the name and style of M/s Cheap Gun House since 1972. He further stated that the aforesaid arms dealer licence is in Form 13, therefore there is no justification for the State Government to refuse the permission of grant of licence to the petitioner which, according to Shri Jain, is contrary to the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act. Shri Jain further submitted that in view of Subsection (3) of Section 14 of the Arms Act while refusing to grant of licence, the licensing authority is under the legal obligation to record reasons for the same. Sub-Section (3) of Section 14 of the Arms Act is quoted below: "Refusal of Licences (1) ............... (2) ............... (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person, it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement." A bare perusal of the order impugned in the present writ petition demonstrates that no reason whatsoever has been assigned in rejecting the application for grant of Arms Dealer's licence of the petitioner. Even on perusal of the records, learned Standing Counsel could not point out anything, which may demonstrate that any reason has been given by the State Government in rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of licence.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Shri Jain tried to argue that this writ petition deserves to be allowed on the short ground that no reason whatsoever has been assigned in rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of licence, but the petitioner should not be relegated again to the licensing authority in the facts and circumstances of the present case and for this purpose he relied upon decisions of the apex Court, reported in A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court, 829 Hari Chand Sarda Versus Mizo District Council and another, and A.I.R. 1998 Supreme Court, 2779 National Buildings Construction Corporation Versus Raghunathan and others. He further relied upon decisions of the apex Court, reported in A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court, 1108 State of U.P. and another Versus Raja Ram Jaiswal and another; and A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court, 1118 Mohd. Azeem Versus District Judge, Aligarh and others, as well as some other decisions has also been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Jain next argued that this Court should itself deal with the merits or otherwise of the case of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the grant of licence in question or not? I am afraid that this argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assume the function of the licensing authority for grant or refusal of the arms licence. In this view of the matter, the argument advanced by Shri Jain deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected.;