JUDGMENT :

AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

I.A. No. 01 of 2019

1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained. The delay condonation application is allowed. The appeal shall be treated to be withing time.

LPA No. 1720 of 2018

2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2018 passed in CWJC No. 5579 of 2017 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy with liberty to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner.

3. The background in which we have entertained this special appeal, in spite of the said alternative remedy having been pointed out by the learned Single Judge, is reflected from the long drawn litigative battle that the appellant has been pursing for the grant of an arms licence.

4. The applicant is in the business of Real Estate and Building Construction. In the year 2009, he applied for the grant of a licence to possess a rifle. In his application he has mentioned that on account of the heavy nature of transactions he has to carry substantial cash with him for which he requires protection. The application was rejected on 8th November, 2012 by the District Magistrate, Patna on the ground that there is no threat perception to the petitioner either on account of any inimical relations or even from terrorists or criminals of the like nature. The order of the District Magistrate was founded on a police report of the Kankarbagh Police Station, Patna which also recited that the applicant has not faced any incident involving crime nor is there any recommendation that the applicant required special protection. The order being short and cryptic is extracted hereinunder:-

^^iVuk lekgj.kky;] iVukA

¼ftyk 'kL= 'kk[kk½

vkns'k%&

'kL= vuqKfIr okn la[;k&09&232@2009 esa vkosnd Jh egs'k Álkn] firk LoŒ jke jru] lkŒ jksM uEcj 2] v'kksd uxj] FkkUkk&dadMckx] ftyk&iVuk ls ÁkIr ,d ,uŒihŒ cksj jk;Qy vuqKfIr vkosnu&i= ij ojh; iqfyl v/kh{kd iVuk ls lR;kiu Áfrosnu ÁkIr djus dh dkjZokbZ dh xbZA

Okjh; iqfyl v/kh{kd] iVuk }kjk vius v/khuLFk inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds tkap Áfrosnu ds lkFk mDr 'kL= vuqKfIr vkosnu&i= dks vxzlkfjr fd;k x;k gSA lkFk gh vuqe.My iqfyl inkf/kdkjh] lnj iVuk ,oa iqfyl fujh{kd≶&Fkkuk/;{k] dadMckx Fkkuk }kjk tkap Áfrosnu ds vkyksd esa vkosfnr 'kL= vuqKfIr vkosnu&i= dks vuq'kkflr fd;k x;k gSA

Fkkuk/;{k] dadMckx Fkkuk] iVuk ds foLr`r tkap Áfrosnu dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA tkap Ái= dh dafMdk&10 ds d] [k] x ,oa Ä esa vkosnd dks mxzokfn;ksa dV~Vj iaFkh laxBuksa vFkok dq[;kr vijkf/k;ksa ls fdlh [krjs dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha gSA lkFk gh mDr Áfrosnu esa vkosnd ds lkFk dHkh fdlh vkijkf/kd ?kVuk ?kfVr gksus dk Hkh dksbZ mYys[k ugha gS] lkFk gh fdlh fo'ks"k lqj{kk Hk; ds laca/k es dksbZ Áfrosnu vafdr ugha gSA

'kL= vf/kfu;e 1959] 'kL= fu;e 1962 rFkk x`g ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj dk i= la[;k ikap&11016@16@2009 'kL= fnukad 31-03-2010 esa fufgr funsZ'k ,oa ojh; iqfyl v/kh{kd] iVuk ds Áfrosnu ds vkyksd esa lE;d fopkjksijkUr vkosnd Jh egs'k Álkn dk vkosfnr ,d ,uŒihŒ cksj jk;Qy vuqKfIr vkosnu&i= dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA

ys[kkfir ,oa la'kksf/krA

ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh]

iVukA**

5. The applicant preferred an appeal. In the meantime, amendments were made in the Arms Act and the Rules framed and several pronouncements were made by the High Court. Taking notice of the same and in view of the provisions of Section 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, coupled with the Rules, the appellate authority found that the order has proceeded on erroneous considerations and accordingly set aside the order of the District Magistrate and remanded the matter back to the licensing authority for a decision afresh. The appellate authority particularly referred to the provisions of Section 14(1) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959 and commented that the same requires an investigation and report whereafter a police report upon assessment of the conduct of the applicant was required before grant of licence. The applicant also applied under the new format and awaited the outcome