- (1.) ANSHUMAN Singh, J. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith grant a licence for a Double Barrel Gun for which the petitioner had made applications dated 21-10-92 and 11-5-93,
(2.) ON 31-8-93 we had passed an order fixing the case for 27-9-93 by which date counter affidavit may be filed, but no counter affidavit has been filed. Accordingly we are treating the allegations in the writ petition to be correct and are proceeding to dispose of the writ petition finally. We had also issued an interim mandamus on 31-8-93 directing the respondent No. 1 to grant the licence to the petitioner within three weeks or to show cause, but no cause has been shown. The petitioner has alleged that he is a Government employee in Civil Court, Pratapgarh but is permanently residing at Allahabad. He has alleged that for the purpose of self defence and to defend his property he had applied for a Double Barrel Gun licence on 31-10-92 but no order was passed on the same. In pursuance of his applica tion the Sub-Inspector of Police Station Cannington, Allahabad has visited the house of the petitioner and enquired from him about his antecedents. The report of the Sub-Inspector is No. 1178, dated 21-10-1992. Thereafter the petitioner made several visits to the office of the Arms Clerk, Allahabad, but was unable to find put the outcome of the aforesaid application. Hence, he made another application to the Arms Clerk, Allahabad on 5-5-93, a true copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In this application he stated that his earlier application dated 21-10-92 is pending for a long time but he has not heard about its outcome. However, the petitioner was informed that neither his original application nor the reasons in case the original application was rejected are available on the record of the respondent No. 2. Hence the petitioner made a fresh application on 11-5-93 but no order has yet been passed on the same nor was the petitioner informed about the position regarding his application. The petitioner has alleged that persons who have applied much later than him and who have no clean record have been granted arms licence. The petitioner has stated in Para 3 of the writ petition that no criminal case was ever initiated against him nor is he wanted in any case and there are no Government dues against him. The petitioner has an agricultural farm situated in the village which he has to visit every fortnight and he has also to visit Rewa in Madhya Pradesh every two or three months for meeting his relations. In Para 7 of the petition he has alleged that incidence of crime in the country in general and U. P. in particular has gone up and a person has to protect himself. High way robbery and intimidation also take place and hence it is absolutely necessary that a person has to be armed to defend his life and property. Since the respondents have taken no steps, the petitioner was compelled to file this writ petition, We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel also. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court. (Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. District Magistrate, Almora, 1993 ACC 204 : 1993 JIC 490 (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, We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we are in entire agreement with the reasoning and directions contained in the same and hence we uphold the said judgment. In the said judgment it has also been held that if no order is passed on the application for arms licence within three months, it will be deemed to have been granted on the expiry of three months from making of the said application. Since in the present case three months have expired from making of the application by the petitioner, the said arm licence which the petitioner applied for will be deemed to have been granted to him. Apart from this, in the instant case, interim mandamus was also issued to the respondent No. 1 to grant licence to the petitioner within a period of three weeks or to show cause and since neither licence has been granted nor any cause has been shown, interim mandamus issued has become absolute and the respondent No, 1 was dutybound to issue arms licence to the petitioner. We, accordingly, allow this writ petition and issue a mandamus to respondent No. 1 to formally issue the arms licence for which the petitioner applied within a week of production of certified copy of this judgment before him. 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 perform ed 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. .;