IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MJC No.373 of 2010
MD. ABU QAISER S/O MD.ABU BASHER R/O MOH.- QAISER
MANZIL, PATHER KI MAJID, P.S.- SULTANGANJ, DISTT.-
PATNA
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SRI AMIR SUBHANI S/O
NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, HOME COMMISSIONER,
BIHAR, PATNA
2. SRI SUNIL BARTHAWAL S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA
3. SRI JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA
4. SRI VINIT VINAYAK S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA
-----------
For the petitioner : Mr. Waliur Rahman.
For the State : M/S. Satya Prakash Tripathy, SC VII and Rajendra
Kumar Jha, AC to SC VII.
——–
03. 01.12.2010 The Court records its displeasure in the manner in which the
respondent authorities, who are opposite parties before this Court, have
dealt with the earlier direction issued by the Court in CWJC No.10929
of 2009 disposed of on 28.8.2009. The materials, which have come and
were produced by the Arms Magistrate, convinces this Court that they
have been cursory in their approach in dealing with the order of the
Court. Respondent Officers of the State are constitutionally bound to
honour the Court’s direction and implement the orders in true spirit of
the orders which have been passed. It is not an obligation either to the
citizen or to the Court if they comply with the order.
To say the least, the order has been dealt with in a very
cursory fashion and the earlier order of rejection dated 20.11.2009
communicated to the petitioner on the ground that his claim made for
endorsement on the licence for All India Basis was not found to be
2
worthy of consideration is say the least is perfunctory and contrary to
law. Materials brought before this Court did not convince the Court
that petitioner was appropriately issued notice and heard on this issue
before the order of rejection was passed.
Thereafter yet another show cause came to be filed wherein
the communication addressed to the Divisional Commissioner, Patna
has been brought on record stating that the power to make
endorsement on the arms licence of the petitioner is vested in the
superiors and not the District Magistrate and any recommendation has
to come thereafter from appropriate authority in the Home Department.
The contradictions in the two stands are apparent on the
face of record. This Court wanted to take the matter seriously and deal
with the authorities with a more firm hand but with a categorical
assurance being given by the counsel as well as the Arms Magistrate
that they will be careful in dealing with the judicial order in future, the
Court takes a magnanimous view and disposes of the matter with a
clear indication that all such authorities are hereby cautioned in future
that no aberration will be tolerated if it is brought to the notice of the
Court.
The MJC application stands disposed of with direction to
Divisional Commissioner and such superior authority to expedite the
matter.
rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)