B.K.NARAYANA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 17.10.2006 passed by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for grant of licence under the Arms Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the respondent no. 2 in the year 2002. On receipt of the petitioner's application the licensing authority called for the report of officer-in-charge of the police station Cantt. District Shahjahanpur. The officer-in-charge submitted his report before the respondent no. 2 recommending grant of licence to the petitioner. However, respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated 17.10.2006 rejected the petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence on the grounds inter-alia that he had no enemies, there was no special requirement of the petitioner to possess a fire arm licence and that his need was not genuine.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds on which the licensing authority can refuse to grant licence have been laid down in Section 14 of the Arms Act and the licensing authority refusing the licence is bound to give reasons which in view of Section 14 of the Arms Act could only be any one or more of those enumerated in that section and since respondent no. 2 has refused to grant fire arm licence to the petitioner on grounds which are not enumerated in Section 14 of the Act, the order rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of licence is not sustainable at all. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan Vs. State reported in AIR 1982 All. 283.;