- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. Heard Shri SUNIL Kumar, holding brief of Shri Rajesh Yadav and Shri Daya Shanker for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
(2.) IT is alleged that the petitioner is a contractor in Nagar Palika Parishad, " Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh. Due to his clean and honest activities and loyal ties, many rival groups are keeping inimical inclinations towards him and as such he has a desperate need of gun licence for the protection of his life. IT is also stated that the petitioner belongs to a responsible family and does not have any adverse record throughout his career. The petitioner applied for grant of licence of a N. P. Bore Rifle on 17. 2. 2003. The application was sent to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Azamgarh and the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh for their report. The Sub Divisional Mag istrate submitted his report on 14. 8. 2006. During the pendency of the proceed ings for grant of the licence, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 29163 of 2007, Mohd. Abdul Haq v. State of U. P. and others. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 4. 7. 2007, directing the District Magistrate to decide the application strictly in accordance with the law by a reasoned and speaking order afresh within four weeks. By the impugned order dated 11. 10. 2007, Shri Vikash Gothalval, District Magistrate, Azamgarh has rejected the application on the ground that the appli cation made by the petitioner; police report and the Tehsildar's report do not show the special requirement or actual requirement for the purposes of keeping the fire arm. He has relied upon Section 13 (3) (b) of the Arms Act, which provides for grant of fire arm licence "if the licensing authority is satisfied that the person, by whom the licence is required, has a good reason for obtaining the same. "
(3.) IN substance, the District Magistrate has found that the petitioner has not given the requirement and justification for grant of the licence to possess the fire arm (N. P. Bore Rifle ). Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the application form, for the fire arm licence is prescribed under Rule 51 of the Arms Rules. Under clause-12, the petitioner had filled the column by stating that he needs the licence for protection of his life (Atma Suraksha Hetu ). He submits that there is no column in the application form for giving special need or actual need for grant of the fire arm licence. In case the District Magistrate was not satisfied, he could have given a show cause notice to the petitioner and asked him to give the details of the special need for possessing the fire arm.;