Alok Kumar Sinha, J. – Heard the parties.

The petitioner in the present writ application seeks the following main relief: –

“(i) To issue an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) in the nature of writ of Certiorari for quashing Memo No. 4849 dated 03.05.2024 (Annexure-P 35), whereby and whereunder Respondent authority has reiterated its earlier order dated 28.12.2016 (Annexure-1 of I.A. No. 9 of 2017) without considering the issues raised by the petitioner in her application; on erroneous grounds of celebratory firing being reason for not increasing quantity of arms and ammunitions; and without providing any opportunity of hearing, as directed by this Hon’ble Court in its order dated 05.04.2024 in the present proceedings.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a the proprietor of M/s Prem Lata & Sons, engaged in the business of arms trade from Adarsh Complex, under Police Station Gandhi Maidan, Patna. The petitioner is a licensee under the provisions of the Arms Act and the Rules framed thereunder, having been granted Arms Trade License No. 4 of 2004 in Form XII on 11.03.2005, permitting her to keep and sell arms and ammunitions of all bores under NP bore category. It is submitted that the said license has been periodically renewed and is presently valid.

3. It is further submitted that while seeking renewal of the license, the petitioner had also prayed for enhancement in the quantity of arms and ammunitions permissible under her license, on the ground that the sanctioned limit was insufficient to cater to the genuine demand of licensed arms holders. The application of the petitioner was duly considered and recommended by the learned District Magistrate, Patna, who, after due enquiry and consideration, forwarded the proposal for increment to the Commissioner, Patna, who in turn also approved the same and recommended it further to the competent authority in the Home Department.

4. Learned counsel points out that despite clear recommendations of the District Magistrate as well as the Commissioner, the Additional Secretary (Home), Government of Bihar, vide Memo No. 10169 dated 28.12.2016, declined the request of the petitioner for enhancement of quantity, without assigning any cogent reasons, and on the erroneous assumption that there already existed sufficient stock of arms and ammunitions in the district. It is urged that such reasoning was wholly arbitrary and contrary to record, inasmuch as the supply from ordnance factories was available only in the minimum quota of 1000 cartridges per bore, and the petitioner, owing to the restricted quota, was unable to procure the required variety of cartridges, thereby seriously affecting her trade.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that again, vide Memo No. 4848 dated 03.05.2024, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of the quota, on the wholly irrelevant ground of alleged “celebratory firing,” without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, despite specific directions of this Hon’ble Court in an earlier writ proceeding. It is contended that the said reasoning is misconceived, as the petitioner, being a licensed arms dealer, can sell arms and ammunitions only to individuals possessing valid arms licenses issued by the competent authority, and hence there is no correlation between “celebratory firing” and the enhancement sought by her for commercial purposes.

It is further contended that the District Magistrate, being the licensing authority under the Act, is in the best position to gauge the local demand and supply position, as well as the law and order implications within his district. Once such authority has recommended the enhancement, the Additional Secretary (Home) could not have differed from the recommendation arbitrarily and without recording any cogent justification.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to the fact that in several other districts of the Sta