- (1.) ANSHUMAN Singh, J. The petitioner, by means of the present petition, has approached this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant licence for non-prohibited bore revolver or pistol for which the petitioner has applied vide applications dated 21-10-1992 and 11-5-1993. The petitioner is a practising lawyer in this court and has put in practice of about 18 years. The petitioner also owns agriculture land in villages Chakdeeha, Rajapur, Prayagpur, Khaparkunchave and Ratawal etc. in Tehsil Meja of the District and the petitioner visits the aforesaid villages every fortnight to look after his cultivation. Some of the petitioner's the relations reside in the city of Rewa in Madhya Pradesh and Patna in Bihar which he visits once about every two or three months. Since the incidence of crime in U. P. has gone up and especially in the areas where the petitioner has holdings and the district of Rewa in Madhya Pradesh, where he has his relations, is prone to dacoities and other heinous kinds of crimes, he needs a weapon for self-defence.
(2.) IN view of the facts stated above, the petitioner has applied for grant of fire arm licence for non- prohibited bore revolver for self defence. It is alleged that enquiries were made by the Sub-INspector of Cannington police station, Allahabad in October, 1992, but the petitioner was not communicated any order having been passed on his applications. Since the petitioner did not hear anything about the result of his applications, he again filed an applica tion in May, 1993. But it appears that no order was passed on this applica tion and petitioner was not informed about any order having been passed. His representatives also made queries from the Arms Clerk in the Office of the District Magistrate, Allahabad but he too did not inform about any order having been passed on the petitioners application. Ultimately the petitioner approached this court. On 31-8-1993 standing counsel was granted tin e to file counter affidavit by 27-9-1993 and interim mandamus was also issued on the same date directing respondent No. 1 to grant licence to the petitioner within a period of three weeks or to show cause within the same period The case was listed on 30th September, 1993 and since no counter affidavit has been filed, we are treating the allegations in the writ petition correct and we propose to dispose of the writ petition finally at the admission stage itself. It may also be mention ed that inspite of the interim mandamus neither licence was granted to the petitioner nor any cause has been shown. It has also been averred by the petitioner that many persons who applied for grant of arm licences much later than the petitioner and people even having less clean record than the peti tioner have been granted licences. It has also been stated that the petitioner does not possess any arm licence. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment rendered by one of us (Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) in the case of Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. District Magistrate, Almora, 1993 ACC 204: 1993 JIC 460 (All), in which it has been held that the right to carry a non-prohibited weapon is a fundamental right being part of life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
(3.) WE have perused the aforesaid judgment and we find ourselves in full agreement with the law laid down in the aforesaid case and we endorse the reasoning and the directions contained therein. In the case of Ganesh Chandra Bhatt (Supra) it has also been held that if no order is passed on the application for arms licence within three months from the date of its appli cation, it shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiry of three months. In the instant case the fact is not disputed that three months have already expired from making of the application by the petitioner but the same was not disposed of. As no orders have been communicated to the petitioner in this situation the application shall be deemed to have been allowed and con sequently respondent No. 1 was duty bound to issue a formal licence for the weapon applied for by the petitioner. The petitioner's case stands on a much higher footing for the reasons that an interim mandamus was issued to the respondents either to grant licence or to show cause but since no show cause has been shown and the period granted for the same has expired, the interim mandamus has become absolute and the respondents are duty bound to issue licence to the petitioner. Before parting with the case we would also like to observe that when applications for grant of licence are made to the licencing authority and if such applications have not been rejected, then after the expiry of three months from the date of its applications, all such applications shall be deemed to have been allowed and the licence stands granted and thereafter only ministerial act has to be performed and therefore the District Magistrate in such situations are directed to issue formal arms licence in the prescribed form on payment of requisite fee etc. forthwith. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed and we direct respondent No. 1 to issue arms licence formally to the petitioner for which he has applied within a week of production of the certified copy of the judgment before him on depositing necessary fee etc. However, there will be no order as to cost. Petition allowed. .;