TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner's brother was murdered in the village where the petitioner was also residing. The petitioner feared for his life and with this unfounded fear that he may also be murdered by unknown assailants and in order to protect his life which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, applied for an arms licence under the Arms Act, 1959.
(2.) THE fact that his brother died is admitted by the respondents. The fact that for this purpose the petitioner had applied is also admitted but due to short -sightedness, the District Magistrate refused to grant a licence and rejected his application on the ground that there was no threat to his life. The petitioner filed an appeal which was also rejected and consequently, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 58060 of 2011 which was allowed by a judgement dated 11.10.2011. The writ court quashed the order of the District Magistrate and the appellate order and directed the District Magistrate to re -decide the matter in accordance with the observations made in the judgement. For facility the extract of the judgement is quoted hereunder : - "7. This Court in Pawan Kumar Jha Vs. 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. 8. A fire arm licence cannot be denied only on conjectures and surmises and without appreciating the objective of statute under which the power is being exercised. Right to life and liberty which includes within its ambit right of security and safety of a person and taking, adopting and pursuing such means as are necessary for such safety and security, is a fundamental right of every person. Keeping a fire arm for the purpose of personal safety and security is a mode and manner of protection of oneself and enjoyment of fundamental right of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the interest of maintenance of law and order certain reasonable restrictions have been imposed on such right but that would not make the fundamental right itself to be dependant on the vagaries of executive authorities. It is not a kind of privilege being granted by Government to individual but only to the extent where grant of fire arm licence to an individual would demonstratively prejudice or adversely affect the maintenance of law and order including peace and tranquillity in the society, ordinarily such right shall not be denied. It is in these circumstances, this Court has observed that grant of fire arm licence ordinarily be an action and denial an exception. In Vinod Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others, (Writ Petition No. 38645 of 2011), decided on 15.07.2011 this Court has said: "When a fire arm licence is granted for personal safety and security it does not mean that in the family consisting of several persons only one fire arm licence is to be granted. Moreover, this cannot be a reason for denial of arm licence. Fire arm licence can be denied only if the reason assigned by applicant or details given by him in application are not found to be correct but merely because there are one fire arm licence already possessed by one of the family member, the same cannot be denied. Grant of fire arm licence should ordinarily be an action and denial should be an exception. The approach of authorities below is clearly arbitrary and illegal. It also lacks purpose and objective of the statute." 9. The authorities empowered to grant licence under the Act ought not to behave as if they are part of the old British sovereignty and the applicant is a pity subject whose every demand deserved to be crushed on one or the other pretext. The requirement of an Indian citizen governed by rule of law under the Indian Constitution deserved to be considered with greater respect and honour. The authorities thus shall have considered the requirement of applicant with more pragmatic and practical approach. Unless they find that in the garb of safety and security, applicant in fact intend to use the weapon by obtaining a licence for a purpose other than self defence, it ought not to have been denied such licence. I am not putting the statutory power of authority concerned in a compartment since there may be more than one reasons for exercising statutory discretion against applicant but then that must justify in the context of purpose and objective of statute and necessarily ought not be whimsical. 10. Both impugned orders in the case in hand shows that on wholly conjectures and surmises the authorities have denied petitioner's claim for fire arm licence and have rejected his application in a most arbitrary manner. The two orders, therefore, cannot sustain." The court held that a licence can be granted for right to life and liberty which includes within its ambit right of security and safety of a person being a fundamental right. The petitioner was entitled to get a fire arms for the purpose of personal safety and security. The court also held that the orders passed by the District Magistrate was based on surmises and conjectures.
(3.) INSPITE of this direction, the District Magistrate again rejected the application vide an order dated 6.1.2012 holding that the petitioner does not have any threat to his life. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal which was allowed and the matter was remanded. The District Magistrate again by the impugned order dated 29.8.2013 has passed an order mechanically on the same ground namely that there is no threat of the life. The petitioner being aggrieved has now filed the present writ petition.;