ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) Issuance of appropriate writ/order for quashing the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Patna as contained in memo No.2731 dated 04.08.2023 whereby and whereunder application of petition to issue Arms Licence of one N.P. Bore Revolver/Pistol has been rejected and also the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Patna in Arms Appeal No.272/2023 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the Collector.

(ii) Issuance of appropriate writ/order commanding the respondents to issue Arms Licence to the petitioner as prayed in his application for Arms licence one N.P. Bore Revolver/Pistol.

(iii) Issuance of any other relief to which petitioner found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a builder and Director of Bigrahpuram Developers Pvt. Limited, apprehending threat to his life while travelling day and night in course of his business, applied on 17.01.2023 for grant of an Arms Licence of one N.P. Bore Revolver/Pistol, upon which Miscellaneous Arms Case No. IX-49/2023 was registered; that the report called for from the S.S.P., Patna, and in turn from the S.H.O., Jakkanpur, was favourable and recommended grant of the licence; that despite such recommendation, the District Magistrate, Patna rejected the application vide order dated 04.08.2023 (memo No. 2731), and the appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna vide order dated 30.04.2024 in Arms Appeal No. 272/2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the S.H.O., Jakkanpur, upon enquiry, had recommended grant of the Arms Licence to the petitioner, which recommendation was forwarded and endorsed by the S.S.P., Patna to the District Magistrate; and that the District Magistrate, while rejecting the application, did not record any reason for the refusal, rendering the order arbitrary and unsustainable in law

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that although Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 502/2021 (under Sections 447/427/379/354/504/506/34 I.P.C.) was cited against the petitioner, the petitioner has since been acquitted of the said charges vide judgment dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Patna.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the petitioner, being a builder who apprehends threat to his life and property in the course of his business and travels widely, has a genuine requirement for the Arms Licence and that the petitioner has also undergone training in Arms Shooting at the Deoghar District Rifle Shooting Association, a certificate whereof was issued on 07.12.2022 and as such the refusal of the Arms Licence is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel for the State/Respondent No. 4 submitted that the District Magistrate, Patna, after considering the police report which disclosed the pendency of Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 502/2021 under Sections 447/427/379/354/504/506/34 I.P.C. against the petitioner, and in exercise of powers under Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016, rejected the application vide order dated 04.08.2023, and that the said order was affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna vide order dated 30.04.2024 in Arms Appeal Case No. 272/2023.

8. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that under Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959, the licensing authority is bound to refuse a licence where it deems it necessary for the security of public peace or public safety, and that the orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner, being based on the material on record, are justified in the eyes of law and the writ petition is devoi