IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.525 of 2011
====================================================
GANANAND MISHRA – Petitioner/s(s)
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS – Respondent/s(s)
====================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. BINODANAND MISHRA
For the Respondent/s: Mr. J.P.KARN AAG9
====================================================
4 1.7.2011 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated
14.9.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division,
Darbhanga whereby the appeal bearing Misc. Case No.27/2007-08
filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
The petitioner was holder of Arms Licence No. 23 of
74 of DBBL Gun NO.7054980 and Licence No.522 of 1980 of
Revolver No.32 LJW 884002. On the basis of recommendation of
the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani dated 11.10.2004
contained in letter no.3777(CR) the licence of the petitioner was
suspended and thereafter the licence was cancelled by order of the
District Magistrate, Madhubani. The appeal preferred against the
order of cancellation of licence before the Commissioner also did
not succeed.
Learned counsel submits that an F.I.R. bearing
Jhanjharpur R.S. Shivir P.S. Case No.156 of 2003 under sections
147, 149, 427/506 of I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act was
instituted against the petitioner. It would appear from the F.I.R.
that there was some land dispute and the petitioner at the worst
was alleged to have opened fire in the air. There is no allegation
2
that he intend to injure or hurt any one by opening fire. He further
submits that in all these years the petitioner has kept good
behaviour and by now the period of cancellation of his licence
completes over six years. The petitioner faces threat to his life and
on account of village politics the people are trying to encroach
upon his land.
Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner took
law on his own hand and he should have approached the District
administration if he had any grievance in this regard.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
going through the materials on record, it appears that charge sheet
has been submitted in the case wherein it has been stated that the
petitioner had opened fire in the air to frighten the other side. So
far as threat of his life and property from extremists and other anti
social elements are concerned, it would be always open to the
petitioner to approach the District Administration for necessary
protection. However, it would be open for the petitioner to file a
representation before the appropriate authority for revocation of
his licence if the criminal case is not disposed of within a period of
two years from today.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this
writ petition stands disposed of.
(S.P.Singh,J)
KHAN