Advocates:
['Deepak Kumar', '', 'MANISHA PANDEY', 'AJAY BIHARI SINHA- SC']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5895 of 2016

===========================================================

Sanjeev Kumar, son of Sri Bhola Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla-Padri Ki

Haveli, P.S.-Khajekalan, P.O.-Jhauganj, District- Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar.

2.

The District Magistrate, Patna.

3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.

4.

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.

5.

The Additional District Magistrate (Arms), Patna.

6.

The District Arms Magistrate, Patna.

7.

S.H.O., Khajekala Police Station, Patna.

.... .... Respondents

=========================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Manisha Pandey, Advocate

Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, SC-19

Mr. Neeraj Raj, AC to SC-19

===========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date: 05-04-2016

Heard parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2016

communicated to him vide Memo No.572 dated 2.03.2016, as

contained in Annexure-4, by which his request for grant of licence for

N.P. Bore revolver/pistol has been refused on the ground that his case

has not been recommended by the police authorities including the

Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Patna City, whereas, the Officer-in-

charge of Khajekala Police Station has only stated that the petitioner

is a contractor but nothing has been stated regarding special threat

perception upon him. He has referred to a letter dated 31.03.2010

issued by the Home Ministry, Government of India to come to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.5895 of 2016 dt.05-04-2016

2/4

conclusion that no licence can be issued without police verification

and reached to further conclusion that the petitioner has not been able

to establish that there is special threat upon his person or property.

Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted

that the petitioner’s application should be dismissed on the sole

ground that he has approached this Court without availing the

provision of statutory appeal.

The aforesaid submission is noted only to be rejected

inasmuch as the order impugned appears to be in teeth of the decision

of this Court rendered in Manish Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar

and Ors. [2015 (4) PLJR 212] wherein this Court has held that

non-production of specific evidence regarding threat perception upon

the applicant cannot form a ground for refusal of arms licence under

Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. While considering the aforesaid

issue, this Court has also considered the letter dated 31.03.2010 issued

by the Home Ministry, Government of India and has come to the

conclusion that such direction is only to the extent that the persons

who are receiving threat may also be considered for grant of licence

and the same does not eliminate others for the reason that no authority

can bend or substitute the provision of law which is will and mandate

of legislature. The licensing authority being statutory authority under

the Arms Act is required to act, consider and decide the issue within

Patna High Court CWJC No.5895 of 2016 dt.05-04-2016

3/4

the four corners of statute itself. In such a situation, it would not at all

be proper now to relegate the petitioner to the appellate authority.

When it was not clear from the impugned order as to

whether the Officer-in-charge of Khajekalan Police Statioin has

recommended the case of the petitioner or not, the entire records of

the concerned case were called for. It appears from perusal of the

records that the Officer-in-charge has recommended the case of the

petitioner by stating that he is a Government Contractor of