Threat perception is not a requirement for granting an arms license under the Arms Act.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY ORAL ORDER

5 08-12-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):-

“I. For issuance of a writ or writs in nature of Mandamus for direction and commanding to the concerned respondent authority to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of Arms license and award the same in accordance with law, as the petitioner after fulfilling requisite criteria have applied for safeguard of his life and property and the application filed on behalf of the petitioner is pending consideration since 2018, before the respondent authority i.e District Magistrate, Madhubani, without of any rhyme and reasons.

II. For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled under law, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

3. The following relief(s) has been been added by filing I.A. No. 01 of 2025.

“III). For Quashing of memo no.

123 dated 04.04.2025 issued under the signature of District Magistrate Madhubani whereby and where under the application for grant of Arms license has been rejected in sheer retaliation and vengeance as the petitioner had approached before this Hon'ble court by way of filing present writ application, by an illegal, cryptic, perverse order, that too during pendency of present writ application.”

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has initially applied for issuance of arms license of double barrel gun and pistol in the year 2018 and the concerned S.P./ SHO has recommended for granting the same. Thereafter, the District Magistrate had raised some queries and sought reply from the Circle Officer, DCLR and the same was answered by the Circle Officer, DCLR however, till date the filing of the present writ petition, no orders were passed. Subsequently, the District Magistrate, Madhubani vide order dated 04.04.2025 which is impugned in the present writ petition has rejected the application of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the respondent authority without any application of mind has in a mechanical manner rejected the application made by the petitioner without taking into consideration that the petitioner is an owner of automobile agency and that he has to travel from his showroom to his house carrying huge cash amounts i.e., the cash from the daily sales. That the petitioner was attacked and threatened by some anti social on one occasion and he informed the SHO Khutauna Police Station by way of a written complaint. However, the authority without taking the same into consideration has simply rejected the application solely on the ground that there is no threat perception to the life of the petitioner herein. Learned counsel has stated that the decision of the District Magistrate rejecting the application for arms license is contrary to the provisions of the Arms Act and the judgments of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Pat 2212 and in the case of Manis Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. with its analogous cases reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Pat 6455. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to allow the present writ petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Madhubani vide order dated 04.04.2025 and direct the authorities to issue arms license.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present writ petition. Lear