High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/1237/2016

Sarvesh Devi v. State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR

2016-02-15Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Manmohan2 pages

$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1237/2016 SARVESH DEVI ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Vijay Pal Sharma, Advocate.

versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr.Rajat Malhotra with Mr.Jitendra Kumar, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

O R D E R

% 15.02.2016 Present petition has been filled seeking a direction to respondents to issue an arms licence to the petitioner. It is the petitioner's case that she requires an arms licence for her safety. It is stated in the petition that her father was murdered in 1986 when she was a minor and after that she was brought up by her maternal aunt. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on becoming major, petitioner claimed her share in her father's property but she was threatened and was restrained from visiting her paternal house.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 2nd March, 2015, petitioner's application for grant of arms licence was rejected by the Joint Commissioner. He further states that the petitioner's appeal before the Lt. Governor was also rejected on 2nd December, 2015 on the ground that having a civil/land dispute is no reason to

possess an arm.

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jagan Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Police, W.P.(C) No.7483/2015 decided on 27th November, 2015 has held that assessment by the Licensing Authority is an assessment of fact as to the suitability of a person to hold an arms licence and which assessment of fact is ordinarily not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. It was also held in the said case that the law is that an arms licence is not a matter of right but a statutory privilege and of which the Licensing Authority is the absolute assessor.

Even an appeal being LPA No.2/2016 filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Division Bench of this court on 5th January, 2016.

Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the decision of respondent no.2 calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. MANMOHAN, J FEBRUARY 15, 2016 KA