- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. Heard Sri Shyam Krishan, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri A. K. Singh, learned Advocate who appeared as State Counsel.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order of the licensing authority dated 29- 11-2006 by which petitioner's application for grant of fire arm license has been rejected. After hearing learned Counsel for both sides this Court is of the view that keeping matter pending by calling the respondents to file response may be futile exercise and as there is no dispute about the facts, by noticing them in brief the writ petition can toe conveniently disposed of. Petitioner applied for grant of fire arm license showing his need i. e. personal safety and the safety of his property as petitioner claims to be an agriculturist. On moving the application in the prescribed proforma petitioner deposited the National Saving Certificate also of Rs. 5,000/- and he also filed other required documents. Report from Tehsil authorities in respect to his status and need etc. was called upon which the Tehsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Supervisor Kanoongo all recommended for grant of license. The police authorities, as required under Section 13 (2) of the Arms Act gave a report that petitioner is not to be issued the arm license as a N. C. R. No. 5 of 2006 under Section 504, 506 IPC has been registered against him. On getting the report the matter was placed before the licensing authority with the report of the Arms Clerk dated 29-11-2006. On that very date O. C. (Arms) also made his endorsement that in view of the report of the Superintendent of Police dated 24-11-2006 the license may not be granted. The licensing authority in its turn on 29-11-2006 itself by putting his seal by one word order "rejected", refused to grant license and thus petitioner has to come up to this Court.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the licensing authority refusing to grant license cannot be said to be a valid exercise inasmuch there is complete non-application of mind to the facts and situation and the ground on which petitioner wanted to get license and in fact the licensing authority in a whimsical and manner, instead of applying his own mind and discretion, simply dittoed the report of the arms clerk and the O. C. (Arms ). Lastly it is submitted that the only ground on which the police has not recommended for grant of license is a N. C. R. under on 504, 506 IPC which may not be a valid ground/impediment for not granting the license to the petitioner and in any view of the matter in respect to that the report/complaint a compromise was already filed in the concerned police station which was also placed before the licensing authority to the information of the petitioner but without considering all these aspects in a mechanical manner the impugned order has been passed and thus, this being the situation, there being no dispute about the fact petitioner is not to be relegated to the alternative forum of approaching the appellate authority as it has been repeatedly said by the Apex Court and by this Court also that in appropriate cases availability of the alternative remedy may not come in the way of the petitioner to get the relief from this Court. It is on this premises submission is that this Court is to intervene. Sri Singh, learned State Counsel in opposition thereof submits that as police Personnel has not recommended for grant of arm license, that was a valid ground for the licensing authority for rejecting the petitioner's application. Sri Singh submits that although the recommendation of the Tehsil authorities in respect to the status and need of the petitioner favours him but as Section 13 (2) of the Arms Act permits the consideration of the report of the police personnel and, therefore, if there is no recommendation in favour of the petitioner and his application has been rejected, then exception can be taken to it. Lastly it has been submitted that petitioner can take curse of the alternative forum of filing the appeal against the impugned order and, therefore, this may not be a fit case for interference.;