Judgment:
ORDER
R.S. Garg, J.
1. By this petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the correctness, validity and propriety of the orders Annexure-F, dated 4-7-1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Satna and Annexure-I, passed by the Commissioner, Rewa in appeal case No. 20/Arms/84-85, dated 26-11-1984.
2. The petitioner applied for grant of a licence of a revolver. According to the petitioner, the licence was required for defence of person and property. After the application was filed, various reports were called for. Superintendent of Police, by his report Annexure-B gave the positive report in favour of the petitioner clearly stating that the petitioner bears good conduct and holds property. The Superintendent of Police recommended the grant. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate called for the report of Tahsildar and after receiving the report found that the petitioner is, having a good financial status, a respectable person and is entitled to hold the arms. He also recommended for grant of licence. The Patwari also submitted his report in favour of the petitioner recommending that the licence can be given in favour of the petitioner. In view of all these certificates/reports, ordinarily a licence could have been granted in favour of the petitioner, but the learned District Magistrate, Satna by its order dated 4-7-1984 observed that in the township of Maihar sufficient arms are available, the township is not infested by dacoits, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to a licence. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner but the said appeal proved to be futile. The additional argument of the petitioner, that as he has to carry cash with him, he is entitled to a revolver, was also rejected holding that if the firm's cash is being carried by the petitioner, then the firm could apply for the licence.
3. Shri Dhande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application for grant of licence made under section 13 of the Indian Arms Act can only be rejected if the foundation is available under section 14 of the Act. He submits that the grounds for rejection must be germane or akin to the provisions of section 14 and a licence cannot be refused on the grounds on which it has been refused.
4. Shri Khaskalam, learned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that reasonable reasons have been given by the District Magistrate, Satna, therefore, this Court should refrain from making any interference in the said order.
5. According to section 13 of the Indian Arms Act, an application for grant of the licence shall be made to the licensing authority and shall be in such form and shall contain all such particulars and should be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed. On receipt of such an application, after making such inquiries as are considered necessary, the licensing authority may grant the licence or refuse to grant the same. True it is that to grant or refuse the licence is within the domain of the District Magistrate, but a refusal can only be made on the grounds well described under section 14 or the grounds which are akin to it. According to section 14, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant a licence in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunitions or it may be refused if the person seeking the licence has been prohibited by the Arms Act or by any other law for the time being inforce from acquiring such arms or ammunitions or the applicant is of unsound mind or he is unfit for any other reason or where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. According to section 14(2) of the Act, the licensing authority shall not refuse to grant the licence merely on the ground that such applicant does not own sufficient property. The licensing authority in the instant case has rejected the application on two grounds. Firstly that in the township of Maihar sufficient arms are available and secondly the area is not infested by the dacoits or there is no intimidation by the dacoits. In my opinion, these two grounds were not sufficient to reject the application. For rejecting the application for grant of a license, the authority must act within section 14 of the Act and if section 14 is not considered to be exhaustive then for a reason which is akin to the reasons given in section 14 of the Act. It is unfortunate that despite recommendations of all concerned, the licensing authority thought it fit not to grant the licence. The appellate order also does not consider these aspects of the matter. According to para 4 of the appellate order, the learned District Magistrate has given proper reasons. In para 5 the learned Commissioner has considered the comments of the District Judge whose order was under challenge before him. I do not understand the propriety of calling for the comments of the authorities whose order was under challenge before the appellate authority. The appellate authority should have decided the matter on its own merits without being influenced by the comments of the officer whose order was under challenge. It cannot be expected for a prospective licence holder that at the time of some attack upon him or where his person or property is in danger, he would go and ask for the arms from the others. The sufficiency of the arms in the township would be no reason for refusing the licence. Whether an area is infested by dacoits or not would again be no reason because the person or the property of a person does not face the danger only from the dacoits. There are variety of the reasons for which a person would like to hold an arm with him and the best of those is the self defence. The grounds on which the application was rejected are absolutely illegal and contrary to provisions of law. The orders Annexure F & I are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the licensing authority/District Magistrate to decide the application afresh within three months from the date of production of this order, keeping in view the observations made by this Court in this order.
There shall be no orders as to cost. The amount of security, if any, be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.