IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.14869 of 2009
1. OM PRAKASH GUPTA S/O LATE SITA RAM SAHU R/O VILL-
JILKAPUR, P.S- KARGAHAR, P.O- GHORDIHA, DISTT- ROHTAS
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ROHTAS
4. THE S.D.O., KARGAHAR, ROHTAS
5. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, KARGAHAR, ROHTAS
-----------
For the Petitioner:- Mr. Vishal Saurabh, Adv.
For the Respondents:- Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, AC to G.A.-1
————
9. 30.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of
the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram dated
20.5.2010 refusing to grant him an Arms License in
Arms Case No. 82 of 2010.
It is submitted that the father of the
petitioner held a valid license for a double barrel
gun. His father expired on 25.6.1997. Prior to the
same, the petitioner on 26.2.1997 had applied for an
Arms License in his own name. The petitioner now
desires to continue and retain the double barrel gun
of his father presently deposited in safe custody. It
has been declined notwithstanding the
recommendation by the Superintendent of Police. It
is submitted that the ground mentioned in the
impugned order for refusal to grant license are not
2
germane and extraneous to Section 14 of the Arms
Act regulating the grant of license.
Learned counsel for the State sought to
raise an issue with regard to the correctness of
submission of any application by the petitioner dated
26.2.1997. In the view of the Court that issue is no
more relevant when the fact is not in dispute on
behalf of the State that the Superintendent of Police
has made a recommendation in favour of the
petitioner. There is a presumption of the petitioner
having applied for grant of an Arms License as in
absence of the same, the question of any
recommendation in his favour does not arise much
less a final order for refusal to grant the license.
That leaves in question the correctness of the
impugned order.
Section 14 of the Arms Act specifies the
conditions under which the license can be refused.
The impugned order rejects the application on the
ground that there was no threat perception to the
petitioner. That is not one of the grounds mentioned
in Section 14. The stand of the State with reference
to any executive instruction dated 31.3.2010 of the
Union of India is best answered on the proposition
that if the grant of license is regulated by any
3
statutory provisions, it has to be considered strictly
in accordance therewith and cannot be varied or dis-
regarded on basis of any executive instruction. In
any event, the respondents have chosen to confront
the Court with their own interpretation and
application of the executive instruction without even
placing it before the Court and then leaving it for the
Court to decide. The impugned order of rejection
dated 20.5.2010 is therefore not sustainable in law.
It is accordingly set aside.
The District Magistrate is now required to
consider the grant of license to the petitioner in light
of the recommendation made by the Superintendent
of Police and the ground urged by the District
Magistrate having been found to be beyond his
statutory power by the Court.
Let such fresh orders be passed by the
District Magistrate within a maximum period of one
month from the date of receipt/production of a copy
of this order.
The writ application stands allowed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)