I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. In view of identical issues having been involved, all the writ petitions have been considered together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

3. The necessary facts for consideration of the cases are being enumerated as under :

C.W.J.C. No. 18535 of 2011

4. The petitioner had applied for grant of licence for D.B.B.L. gun before the District Magistrate, Rohtas. The matter was sent for verification to the police. The superintendent of Police, Rohtas, Dehri-on-Sone recommended for grant of license. However, the District Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 06.07.2006 appended as Annexure-2 on the ground that there does not appear to be any threat perception upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred Appeal No.422 of 2006 assailing the aforesaid order which was disposed of and remitted back the matter to the District Magistrate, Rohtas for fresh consideration after granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter, when the District Magistrate was not disposing of the matter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.1476 of 2009 which was disposed of vide order dated 05.02.2009 (Annexure-8) directing the District Magistrate, Rohtas to pass a final order in the matter. However, when the same was not passed then the petitioner again approached this Court by filing M.J.C. No.3573 of 2009 which was disposed of vide order dated 28.07.2011 as, in the meantime, final order was passed by the District Magistrate again rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. It appears from the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate dated 10.01.2011 (Annexure-11) that the application has been rejected on the ground that there is no threat perception upon the petitioner. Hence, the present wit application has been filed.

C.W.J.C. No. 18790 of 2011:

5. The petitioner applied for grant of licence for D.B.B.L. gun, however, the District Magistrate, Munger, rejected the claim and, as per the communication to him vide Annexure 1 dated 10.05.2008, the reason assigned is that he has not been able to establish that there is a threat perception upon the petitioner. Arms Appeal No. 29/2011 filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Munger was also dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2011 simply stating that the appellant could not set forth any valid reason for grant of licence.

C.W.J.C. No. 20294 of 2011:

6. The claim of the petitioner is that his father was licence holder of D.B.B.L. gun and after his death in the year 1994 the concerned gun was deposited before the Hindustan Arms, Dealer of Arms and Ammunitions, Rohtas at Sasaram and, thereafter, he filed an application for grant of licence in his name for the D.B.B.L. gun, however, the same was rejected on the ground that nothing stands stated in the verification report regarding the threat perception. The petitioner preferred Appeal No. 356 of 2006 which was allowed and the order dated 29.07.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram was quashed. The matter was remitted back to him for taking a fresh decision keeping in view the recommendation of the police authority and also after granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Petitioner’s case was re-numbered as Arms Case No. 33/2011, however, again his application was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2011 on the ground that he has not been able to establish that there is threat perception upon him. A reference has been made in that connection to the direction of the Ministry of Home, Central Government dated 31.03.2010 by which a direction was given to the licensing authority that before granting any arms licence under the Arms Act it would have to be satisfied that there is threat perception upon the applicant. The aforesaid order is sought to be challenged.

C.W.J.C. No. 20521 of 2011:

7. It appears that the petitioner’s application for grant of licence for D.B.B.L. gun was rejected on 09.08.