ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner had applied for grant of arms licence under the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for N.P. Bore SBBL gun in 2001, for his self defence and protection of his family. It is his case that despite the fact that there was a favourable report of the Police on due verification, his application was rejected in the year 2006 on specious ground that he could not produce any cogent documentary evidence in support of his threat perception, requisite for grant of such licence. He had preferred an appeal against the said order of the District Magistrate before the Commissioner, Patna Division, which was disposed of by an order dated 01.06.2012, remitting the matter back to the District Magistrate, Rohtas. The District Magistrate, Rohtas again rejected the petitioner’s application by an order dated 08.05.2013 on the same ground of the petitioner’s inability to produce any cogent documentary evidence to justify any threat to his life or property. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing a writ application, giving rise to CWJC No. 14628 of 2013. The writ application was allowed by an order dated 28.09.2015 (Annexure-5) in following terms:-

“Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed. The impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the licensing authority for taking a fresh decision in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that, since no ground has been specified, in the impugned order dated 08.05.2013 (Annexure-1) for refusal of licence other than the aforesaid lack of evidence regarding threat perception, thus, if there is no event subsequent to the date of the impugned order which disqualifies the petitioner either under Section 13 or 14 of the Act from getting the arms licence, the petitioner would be entitled for grant of licence as the same cannot be refused again on the selfsame ground. However, if the authority comes to the conclusion that there was some involvement of the petitioner in some criminal cases which could not be looked into during the earlier proceeding than that can also be considered by it. It is expected that the whole exercise would be completed within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.”

(Underlining for emphasis)

3. The petitioner again approached the District Magistrate, Rohtas in the light of this Court’s order dated 28.09.2015. After having received a notice from the office of the District Magistrate, he is said to have appeared before him on 15.03.2016 in the proceeding for grant of arms licence. As no decision was being taken despite the Court’s order dated 28.09.2015, the petitioner filed a contempt application before this Court, giving rise to M.J.C. No. 3896/2016. It was during the pendency of the contempt petition that another notice was issued dated 27.08.2018, asking the petitioner to appear before the District Magistrate along with certain documents.

4. It is the petitioner’s case that in response to the said notice dated 27.08.2018, the petitioner presented himself in the office of the District Magistrate on 31.08.2018 and intimated the office that because of short time (4 days) allowed for production of documents, he had not been able to arrange all the documents. It is the petitioner’s further case that he was made to wait for the interview with the District Magistrate but finally he had to leave the place under the assurance of the office that a subsequent date would be given for his appearance. This stand of the petitioner has been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Magistrate and it has been stated that when the petitioner was asked to appear on 31.08.2018, he did not appear.

5. Fact remains that the petitioner’s application for grant of license again has been rejected by an order dated 31.08.2018, this time on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce training