Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) The petitioner already possesses a D.B.B.L. arras license, which has been renewed in his favour from time to time and lastly on 7.4.2004 for a period up to 31.12.2006. On 10.12.1999 the petitioner applied to the District Magistrate, Banda, Respondent No. 2 for grant of another license of Revolver Pistol as he is a registered Government contractor and his works requires his movement from one place to another, including places in interior areas. By an order dated 1.8.2002, District Magistrate rejected the said application of the petitioner on the ground that he already holds a license for D.B.B.L. gun. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda, Respondent No. 3, on 27.3.2003. Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioner filed writ petition No. 34785 of 2003 which was allowed by this Court on 14.7.2004, and after quashing the orders dated 1.8.2002 and 27.3.2003, the licensing authority was directed to pass fresh orders on the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law, in the light of the decision of the Court dated 8.9.1999 passed in writ petition No. 38002 of 1999 wherein it had been held that acquiring or possessing more than one fire arm license is not prohibited under law nor is it required for an applicant wanting to acquire a second license, to disclose the special reasons for the same. After the aforesaid decision, the licensing authority passed a fresh order on 26.8.2004, again refusing to grant the license to the petitioner for Revolver/Pistol. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 26.8.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Banda, Respondent No. 2, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.) The respondents were firstly granted a month's time on 10.2004 to file a counter affidavit. When the same was not tiled, then on 26.4.2005 this Court granted three week's further time, and no more, to the respondents, to file the counter affidavit. Then on 25.11.2005 the case was adjourned for two weeks and it was mentioned in the order that on the next date the writ petition itself may be disposed of, even if no counter affidavit was filed. Till date the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. Considering the fact that the respondents have already been granted sufficient time and that more than one and half years have passed since the filing of the writ petition, I am not inclined to grant any further time to the respondents to file counter affidavit and thus this writ petition is being, heard and disposed of finally at this stage. I have heard Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(3.) The main ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner was that the Tahsildar, Banda had submitted a report on 20.8.2004 when a it had been stated that the behaviour of the petitioner towards the Government servants and public was not very good and thus there was no justification to grant a fire arm license to him; and it would be against the interest of the public to grant a second license to him. The other ground for not granting the license, as stated in the order, was that the police report did not indicate that the petitioner had any threat to his life and property and that the petitioner had not given any reason to show that he required a license for Revolver/Pistol. It is surprising that in the teeth of the judgment of this Court passed in a lit petition No. 38002 of 1999, which was required to be considered by the Respondent No. 2 while considering the application of the petitioner for grant of license for Revolver/Pistol, such an order has been passed. The petitioner has placed on record the police report dated 4.3.2004 wherein it has been categorically stated that there is no criminal case registered against him. liven the Tahsildar had himself reported, on 16.3.2004, that the petitioner cooperates in Government works and that his behaviour with the Government servants and public is very cordial. On 18.8.2004 the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, where the petitioner works as a registered contractor, had also certified that for carrying out the construction work,, the petitioner had to visit far off places in the interior areas and that his behaviour with the departmental officials was good.;