ARUN TANDON, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has made an application for grant of firearm licence. The application made by the writ petitioner dated 28.5.2004 was rejected un­der an order of the District Magistrate dated 10.10.2007 only on the ground that in col­umn 10-C of the prescribed proforma, for making of such an application, the petitioner had put a cross (x), meaning thereby that no other family member of the writ petitioner was a holder of the firearm licence. When as a matter of fact two- family members of the writ petitioner, namely Ram Sakal Singh and Anand Prakash Singh are holder of firearm licence. Therefore, there being material con­cealment of fact in the application, the peti­tioner was not entitled for the grant of the firearm licence. Appeal filed against the said order before the Commissioner under sec­tion 18 of the Arms Act has also met with the same fate. The order of the Commis­sioner dated 15th April, 2008 as well as or­der passed by the District Magistrate dated 10 October, 2007 have been challenged by means of the present writ petition.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner, with reference to the pedigree qua the petitioner and his ancestors as mentioned in para­graph 9 of the writ petition, points out that Ram Sakal Singh is the son of one Tulsi, who in turn was the son of Ganesh. This branch of the family of Sri Ganesh cannot be treated to be the family of the writ peti­tioner, inasmuch as the petitioner is a lineal descendant of Hansraj (the other son of Ganesh). Hansraj had two sons namely Ram Lakhan and Bachchan. Ram Lakhan in turn has three sons namely Sobhnath, Bai-jnath and late Raj Narayan. Petitioner is the son of Sobhnath, while Anand Prakash Singh is son of late Raj Narayan. Counsel for the petitioner submits that by no stretch of imagination Anand Prakash Singh can be said to be the family member of the writ petitioner, inasmuch as he is only son of real brother of the father of the writ petitioner. He, therefore, sub­mits that the finding recorded by the authorities below for the purposes of holding that the petitioner has concealed material fact by non-disclosure of the fire­arm licence granted in favour of Ram Sakal Singh and Anand Prakash Singh was delib­erate concealment of fact is totally mis-concerned, inasmuch as the aforesaid two persons cannot be treated to be members of the petitioner's family. The pedigree as disclosed in Para 7 has not been disputed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents. Neither the petitioner nor the Standing Counsel could point out the definition of family member under the Arms Act or Rules framed thereunder or under any Government Order issued for the purpose.
(3.) FROM the facts, which have been noticed hereinabove, I am of the opinion that until and unless a finding is recorded that the aforesaid two persons are within the definition of family members of the writ petitioner, it cannot be said that there has been deliberate material concealment of fact by the petitioner in his application form. Consequently, the orders passed by the District Magistrate dated 10.10.2007 and that of Commissioner dated 15.4.2008 are hereby quashed.;