1. Heard

2. The petitioner had applied for an arms licence which has been refused by the impugned order dated 05.08.2006 passed in Arms Act Case No. 197 of 2006 by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector. Rohtas. The only ground given is that even though the petitioner had valid recommendations from all concerned he had failed to file any cogent documentary evidence in support of any threat to him. A bare perusal of the order shows total non-application of mind. This Court wonders what the learned licensing authority means by the aforesaid. Does he mean that an arms licence would only be granted if there has been threat to life and property or does he mean that people have to be killed in order to qualify for getting arms licence? I am afraid. He has totally misconstrued his jurisdiction in this regard. An arms licence is for protection and is a statutory right. It is not dependent on any actual incident having occurred. For if that were so the Act and the Rules framed thereunder would have clearly specified that as a policy for grant of licence. That is not so. It is not a grant of privilege by the licensing authority on his own sole subjective discretion.

3. I, therefore, h