M. Katju J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 4-5-93 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition.
(2.) I have heard the petitioner in person. In this case on 3-11-93 the learned standing counsel was granted six weeks' time to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit was filed. Thereafter on 6-1-94 this Court granted 15 days time and no more to file counter affidavit but yet no counter affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances I am treating the allegations made in the writ petition to be correct and am disposing of the writ petition finally. The petitioner is a practising advocate of this Court and he has alleged that in connection with his professional as also many more personal matters, he has to travel all over India. He has been granted a licence of fire arm bearing Licence No. 693 dated 9-6-1991, photostat copy of which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that his licence has been granted only for Allahabad district whereas it should have been granted for the whole of India. On 10-9-1992 he applied before the Collector, Allahabad for validating the said licence for whole of India. True copy of the application and affidavit is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The A.D.M., Allahabad referred the case of the petitioner to the State Govt. True copy jof the recommendation is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. On 15-2-93 the respondent No. 3 asked for comments of respondent no. 4. True copy of the order on the Joint Secretary is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. On 3-6-93 the petitioner sent to reminder and on that application the" Collector recommended the case of the petitioner vide Annexure 6 to the writ petition. Recently the Special Secretary to U.P. Govt. sent a communication dated 4-5-93 to the Collector that the request of the petitioner for conversion of his firearm licence on all India basis has been rejected. A true copy of the said order is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. Aggrieved this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) I have held in Ganesh Chandra Bhatt v. D.M. Almorah, AIR 1993 Alld. 291 that it is wholly arbitrary to grant arm licence only for particular district. In para 77 of the said judgment I have held a person needs protection wherever he goes, and it is not that once he goes out of his district he is safe. Hence I have held that a licence should be normally not be restricted to the district or State except for special reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant (vide para 81 of the said judgment). A division bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 29963 of 1993, Devendra Pratap v. D.M. and others decided on 20-10-93 has affirmed the aforesaid judgment. In this case there is no special reasons for which the licence has been granted for Allahabad district only. Hence in the circumstances of the case I set aside the impugned order dated 4-5-93 and I direct that the petitioner's arm licence should be rectified by the respondent no. 4 and made applicable for whole of India, The necessary corrections in the arm licence of the petitioner should be made within two weeks by the appropriate authority. Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.;