The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for authorities to consider the cause shown by the appellant and apply their mind in decisions regarding arms licences, in accordance with statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.

NAVIN SINHA, J.

1. We have heard Counsel for the appellant and the State.

2. The present appeal arises from the order dated 7.1.2013 dismissing CWJC No. 5075 of 2012 affirming the order dated 11.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, in Misc. (Arms) Appeal Case No. 11 of 2009-2010 declining to interfere with the order for cancellation of his arms licence by the District Magistrate dated 12.10.2009. Learned Single judge held that acceptability of the explanation furnished by the appellant was the prerogative of the respondents and if they were not satisfied with the explanation it would not be proper exercise of jurisdiction for the Court to interfere in the matter.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that a show cause notice was issued on 4.7.2009 on the ground that the appellant was charge sheeted in Gopalpur PS Case No. 175 of 2009, under Sections 302, 307 and other provisions of the Penal Code, Gopalpur PS Case No. 76 of 2008 under Sections 379, 447 and 34 Indian Penal Code, Gopalpur PS Case No. 386 of 2008 under Section 384, 504 and other provisions of the Penal Code. Out of 315 cartridges purchased only 100 were available with the appellant and there was no satisfactory explanation with regard to user of the same. Information had been received about misuse of the licensed arms by the appellant and his brothers.

4. The appellant submitted his reply denying that he was an accused or that his name figured during investigation in Gopalpur PS Case No. 175 of 2009. With regard to the remaining two cases it was contended that they were outcome of a village property dispute which had been subsequently compromised and settled. On the issue of cartridges, it was submitted that 100 cartridges per year were permissible to him under the licence, when the number of cartridges purchased by him from the year 2003 to 2009 were all well below the permissible limit. The District Magistrate rejected the explanation by only stating that it was not found satisfactory. There was no merit consideration of the grounds furnished. In appeal, the appellate authority again did not consider the issue of his non involvement in Gopalpur PS Case No. 175 of 2009, the compromise in the other two cases and the user of the cartridges as explained.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon 2000 (1) PLJR 818 (Ram Badan Singh @ Ram Balak Singh v. State of Bihar) to submit that being an accused in a criminal case by itself could not be absolute justification to declare the person unfit to hold an arm licence. Holding it not to be a rigid and inflexible rule it was observed that it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. If a defence was put up it was required to be appropriately examined by the authorities. Failure to consider the cause shown appropriately on merit would invalidate the order.

6. Counsel for the State opposing the application submitted that the appellant did not have the absolute right to hold a fire arm and it was subject to statutory limitations. If the authorities were not satisfied of his suitability for possession of fire arm licence mentioned in the order, the Court may not interfere with the subjective decision of the authorities. Reliance was placed on 1987 BBCJ 274 (FB) (Kapildeo Singh v. State of Bihar) to submit that registration and pendency of a criminal case for a major or capital offence may have been adequate justification for suspension or revocation of the licence under Section 17(3)(a) of the Arms Act.

7. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The right to possess an arm in this country is not a fundamental right but is regulated by statutory provisions. If the right to possess is regulated by statute, the authority to interfere with the possession is also regulated by statutory provisions. Section 17 of the Arms Act provides for variation, suspension and revocation of licences. Section 17(3)(a) to (e) provide for conditions under which the