The discretionary power of the Licensing Authority to refuse an arms licence must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Act, and absence of perceived threats or absence of cogent materials supporting the application was not sufficient grounds for refusal.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, in Arms Appeal Case No.11 of 2008, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 28.9.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya as contained in Memo No.1059 dated 17.10.2007 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Rules framed thereunder, has been upheld.

4. The ground assigned by the Licensing Authority being the District Magistrate, while rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of licence, is absence of perceptible threats to the petitioner. It is the stand of the Licensing Authority that there has to be a subjective satisfaction as to the circumstances assigned by the applicant necessitating an arms licence and which has to be based on material facts and not on assumptions or perceptible fears. It is contended that in absence of sufficient reasons mentioned in the application as well as in the police report, the application of the petitioner was rejected.

5. The order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority in its order dated 7.1.2010 passed in Arms Appeal Case no.11 of 2008 and hence, the present writ petition.

6. As the facts are not disputed, it need not be gone into. The only issue that falls for consideration before this court is whether the subjective satisfaction of the Licensing Authority as evinced in the order dated 28.9.2007 placed at Annexure-1 series to the writ petition, is supported by the statutory provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his case has relied upon a bench decision of this court rendered in the case of Amrendra Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and ors, reported in 2007 (4) BBCJ 244 and submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of this court. A counter affidavit has been filed by the District Magistrate, Gaya in support of the impugned orders and in which a stand has been taken that there is no fundamental right to grant of arms licence and that this Court in its writ jurisdiction may not interfere with the order passed by the Licensing Authority in exercise of discretionary power vested under the Act, unless it suffers from patent illegality, lack of jurisdiction or having been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

9. Mr. J.S.Arora, learned Standing Counsel No.6 appearing on behalf of the State, advancing the stand taken by the District Magistrate, Gaya, the Licensing Authority, submits that a licence under the Arms Act is not a fundamental right. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 13 (3)(b) of the Act, in no uncertain terms, vests the Licensing Authority with the discretion to accept or refuse licence upon appreciation of the circumstances set out in the application for grant of licence.

10. Learned counsel, with reference to the application filed on behalf of the petitioner placed at Annexure-2 of the writ petition, more particularly, to Clause-8 thereof, submits that save and except that a plea of self defence has been taken by the applicant for obtaining the arms license, no circumstance has been set forth requiring any such licence. Learned counsel, with reference to the grounds set out in column 3 of the application, submits that the applicant being a business man, the circumstances so mentioned, does not satisfy the requirement for an arms licence. Learned counsel, in support of his submission, has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this court rendered in the case of Kapildeo Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and ors since reported in 1987 PLJR 383 (para-3). It is submitted that the Full Bench of this Court, while considering di