Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.02.2016, passed by the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in Arms License Case No. 82 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for grant of arms license has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not having any threat perception. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 01.06.2018, passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra in Arms Appeal No. 120 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has also stood rejected on the ground that the petitioner has failed to show any specific evidence of threat to his life and property, before the licensing authority.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that absence of threat perception cannot be a ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of arms license. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is a businessman engaged in sale and purchase of building construction materials such as sand, stone chips, iron rods etc., hence he has to face day to day risk when he is required to carry cash amount in discharge of his functions as a businessman, thus for his security and safety, he requires arms license so that he can protect himself and his business activities.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, has referred to Rule 12(1) and (3) of the Arms Rules, 2016, which is reproduced hereinbelow:—

“12. Obligations of licensing authority in certain cases.—(1) Save as otherwise provided in the Act, every licensing authority granting a licence in Form III to an individual for the restricted or permissible arms or ammunition as specified in category I(b) and I(c) or category III respectively in Schedule I, shall have due regard to the application of norms specified in sub-rules (2) and (3).

(3) For grant of a licence for the permissible arms or ammunition specified in category III in Schedule I, and without prejudice to the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 13, the licensing authority, based on the police report and on his own assessment, may consider the applications of -

(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

(b) any dedicated sports person being active member for the last two years, of a shooting club or a rifle association, licensed under these rules and who wants to pursue sport shooting for target practice in a structured learning process; or

(c) any person in service or having served in the Defence Forces, Central Armed Police Forces or the State Police Force and has genuine requirement to protect his life and/or property."

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