DR. RAVI RANJAN, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. This writ application was initially filed for a direction to the licensing authority to consider his application dated 09.02.2011 filed for grant of licence for N.P. bore pistol as the same has remained pending for about three years without passing any order.

3. On the last occasion, learned counsel for the State had submitted, on instruction, that the order rejecting the licence of the petitioner was passed even prior to filing of the writ petition in the year 2014 and on that submission having been made, by order dated 25.08.2015, this Court had granted adjournment to enable learned counsel for the State to seek instruction and file counter affidavit, however, it was clearly directed that the counter affidavit must disclose the fact that if the order rejecting the application of the petitioner was already passed by the licensing authority, whether it was communicated to the petitioner or not should also be stated and if it was communicated to the petitioner then the evidence regarding its communication must be brought on record. However, in complete ignorance of the direction, the counter affidavit has been filed today appending therewith the order dated 26.07.2013 as contained in Annexure D passed in the case of the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Patna. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to show from it that any averment has been made in it regarding the aforesaid query of this Court. No evidence regarding its communication to the petitioner has also been brought on record merely an averment has been made that the order was already communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 3118/Arms dated 08.08.2013, however, no evidence of any service of the aforesaid memo has been brought on record. It is also not stated as to whether the aforesaid memo was actually served upon the petitioner under a registered post or by hand or by any other mode.

4. The petitioner has now filed Interlocutory Application No. 7706 of 2015 seeking amendment in the writ petition for challenging the aforesaid order.

5. In view of a mere bald statement that memo no. 3118/Arms dated 08.08.2013 was communicated to the petitioner and since no evidence of its service upon the petitioner, as directed by this Court in its earlier order dated 25.08.2015, has been brought on record, this Court does not have any option than to accept the claim of the petitioner that the copy of the aforesaid order rejecting the application of the petitioner was never communicated to him.

6. In such a situation, this Court does not have any option than to allow this Interlocutory Application and, accordingly, the same is allowed. Let the relief mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of the aforesaid Interlocutory Application along with the averments made in its support and documents brought on record would form part of the writ petition.

7. In view of the nature of the order which is going to be passed in this case, the writ application is being disposed of without granting any opportunity to learned counsel for the State to file further counter affidavit taking into the consideration the amendment allaowed in the writ petition.

8. From bare perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the application of the petitioner for grant of licence has been refused on the ground that there was no evidence regarding any threat perception upon him. In the counter affidavit the report of the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station has been appended as Annexure B. The report clearly shows that there is recommendation by the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station for granting licence and the reason has been shown for protection of life and property. It cannot be deciphered from the counter affidavit as to why the Superintendent of Police, Patna even after receipt of such recommendation by the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station, forwarded it without any recommendation. Ther

Click Here to Read the rest of this document