IMPORTANT POINT
The lack of evidence regarding threat perception cannot be a ground for refusal of an arms license, and the genuine requirement of the applicant to protect life and/or property must be considered.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.07.2018 passed by the learned Collector, Arwal in Arms License Case No. 20/DM/2018, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for grant of arms license has been rejected on the ground that there is no threat perception to the petitioner. The petitioner has further challenged the appellate order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in Arms Appeal Case No. 148 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the order dated 06.07.2018, passed by the learned Collector, Arwal has been upheld.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, who is a businessman and a social worker as also General Secretary of Arwal District Footwall Sangh, is that he had, for safety of his life and property, applied for grant of arms license before the learned Collector, Arwal in the year 2017, whereafter police verification was made and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Arwal had recommended for grant of arms license to the petitioner, however, the learned Collector, Arwal has dismissed the application of the petitioner for grant of arms license by an order dated 06.07.2018, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal which has also stood dismissed by an order date 20.12.2021.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the petitioner’s challenge to the aforesaid orders dated 06.07.2018 and 20.12.2021, has contended that merely non-existence of any threat perception would not disentitle an applicant from grant of arms license and in this regard he has referred to a judgment reported in 2015(4) PLJR 212, rendered in the case of Manish Kumar & others vs. The State of Bihar & others, paragraph nos. 20 and 22 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

“20. Similarly, Section 14 of the Act lays down that, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13, the licensing authority may refuse to grant the arms license, on certain grounds. Section 14 of the Act nowhere discloses that lack of any evidence regarding threat perception upon the applicant may also form a ground for refusal of the arms licence.

22. Indeed, the subjective satisfaction of the licensing authority on the reasons set forth in Section 13 or 14 of the Act would form a condition precedent for grant of licence or refusal to grant licence but the so-called evidence regarding threat perception does not find specific place either in Section 13 or 14 of the Act. So far Section 14(1)(b) (i)(3) of the Act is concerned, that is only applicable in case the applicant is found to be unfit on any reason provided under the statute but so-called threat perception, not being any ground either in Section 13 or Section 14, one would wonder as to how it can form a ground for refusal of licence. Similarly, even the directive of the Central Government or any authority for such consideration would also not be meaningful in the absence of any statutory provision in that regard. The letter dated 31.03.2010 issued by the Ministry of Home, Central Government, has been considered by a Single Bench of this Court while considering the issue of threat perception for refusal of licence in C.W.J.C. No. 2503 of 2013 (Ram Bachan Rai vs. The State of Bihar and others). While disposing of the aforesaid writ application vide order dated 25.08.2014 the learned Single Judge has opined as under:-

“Even the circular relied upon by the District Magistrate issued by the Government of India does not create any bar. Paragraph ii(a) of the circular in fact merely provides that applications from persons who have perceived threats may be considered. Such requirement in no manner would exclude such persons who do not face any such treat and for the simple reason that any such condition being imposed in a circular issued by the department, would be contrary to the statutory provisions.”

4. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is a well settled l