- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner's application for grant of an Arm Licence was rejected by the respondent No. 2 by an order dated 11th November, 1992. The petitioner's appeal being Appeal No. 28 of 1993 was also rejected by order dated 3rd May 1994. It is these two orders which have been challenged by means of this writ petition.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the reasons given in the impugned orders are no reasons, that unless strong reasons are made out against the grant of licence, the respondents are bound to grant the licence. He next contends that since there was recommendation by the authorities subordinate to the Licensing Authority, the order of rejection of licence being contrary to the said recommendations cannot be sustained and on the basis of such recommendations, the respondents are bound to grant the licence. Admittedly the question of granting licence is at the discretion of the Licencing Authority. Such discretion is not an absolute discretion but is expected to be a judicious one. While passing an order of rejection, the Licensing Authority is expected to record its reasons, but it is not expected that such reasons should be akin to those which are normally given while judicial orders are passed, namely, a judgment. The order should record some reason so as to enable the Court scrutinising the same while exercising revisional jurisdiction to find out reasons behind the rejection. In the present case, the ground for rejection was that no case was made out from the records placed before the Licensing Authority necessitating grant of licence nor any case was made out that the security or safety of the petitioner was in danger. The appellate authority had also examined the relevant papers and documents placed before it and had also come to the same finding. The Licensing Authority has come to a finding on the basis of the documents placed before it which is a concurrent finding of fact. Nothing has been shown to this Court so as to describe such finding as perverse or based on no material or that there was no consideration of material documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the case, has not been able to make out any such case.
(3.) AFTER the conclusion of the argument, the learned counsel submits that if the Court feels like deciding the case against the petitioner, in that event, he may be given time to produce the documents to prove his case by means of filing a supplementary affidavit. The prayer is made at a belated state after the argument is concluded. Hence rejected. Be that as it may, the finding being a concurrent ending of fact to the extent that no ground has been made out which necessitates the grant of Licence and there having been no danger to the safety and security of the petitioner, it was felt that no case for grant of licence was made out being a finding of fact based on record arrived at on the satisfaction of the licensing authority cannot be interfered with by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, unless the exceptions as provided for such interference are shown to be existing. In absence of any perversity as mentioned above, this Court is not entitled to interfere with the finding of fact and the decisions impugned in the present writ petition.;