JUDGMENT

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.:–

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.3.2020, passed by the learned District Magistrate, Patna in Arms Case No. 9-91/2019 whereby and whereunder the District Magistrate cum Collector, Patna has rejected the claim of the petitioner with regard to grant of arms license.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the report of the SHO, Sri Krishnapuri Police Station, dated 9.12.2019 as also that of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Shastri Nagar Police Station, dated 15.12.2019 to submit that it has been reported by the said two officials that since the petitioner is engaged in the profession of valuation of properties and in that regard, he has to visit various places across the State, he is facing threat to his life and property, hence, arms license can be granted to him. It is further submitted that despite the said recommendation made by the aforesaid two officials vide reports dated 9.12.2019 and 15.12.2019, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Secretariat Patna, did not find any threat perception qua the petitioner herein. Considering the aforesaid reports, the District Magistrate, Patna, by the impugned order dated 13.3.2020, has rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of arms license on the ground that there is no reason for grant of arms license to the petitioner herein inasmuch as Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016 also do not postulate grant of arms license without any reason.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, has referred to Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016, which is reproduced hereinbelow:—

“12(3)(a) any person who by the very nature of his business, profession, job or otherwise has genuine requirement to protect his life and/or property; or"

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a judgment reported in 2008(1) PLJR 151 (Amrendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) to submit that it is not necessary that threat perception should be present, so as to warrant grant of arms license to the applicant.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court, reported in 2015(4) PLJR 212 (Manish Kumar & Others Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), to submit that in absence of any evidence regarding threat perception, grant of arms license cannot be refused. In this connection, it would be apt to reproduce paragraph no. 29 of the said judgment hereinbelow:—

“29. This Court is in agreement with the aforesaid decisions as a conjoint reading of Sections 13 and 14 of the Act does not disclose anywhere that the absence of any evidence regarding threat can form a condition for refusal to grant arms licence. In my considered opinion, the licensing authority cannot apply its discretion in a manner to hold that lack of evidence regarding threat perception would make the applicant unfit for grant of licence under Section 14(1)(b)(i)(3) of the Act. The provision has to be read necessarily as the same is there without substituting or taking away anything therefrom. It clearly lays down that the licence can be refused if the applicant is found unfit for any reason under the Act. However, since none of the provisions of the statute discloses that imminent danger or actual threat perception may form a ground for refusal of licence, it cannot be held that the same may form a reason declaring the applicant unfit for grant of licence under the Act in view of the provisions contained in Section 14(1) (b)(i)(3)."

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Manish Kumar (supra) was challenged in appeal by the State i.e. in LPA 758 of 2018 (The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Deepak Kumar) as also in another appeal bearing LPA No.459 of 2018 (State of Bihar & Others Vs. Manish Kumar) and the learned Division Bench of this Court, by a judgment dated 21.1.2019, has clearly held therein that