IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14172 of 2009 BRAJ BIHARI PANDEY S/O LATE DEO SARAN PANDEY VILL.- NIYAZIPUR, P.S.- NATWAR, DISTT.- ROHTAS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ROHTAS 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ROHTAS 4. THE S.D.O. ROHTAS ----------- 02 07.11.2009 The petitioner had made an application for grant of arms licence so that he could retain his Double Barrel Gun of his father for which there was a licence. The application was made way back on 15.11.2001. In spite of all recommendation the application for grant of licence was rejected on 16.08.2004. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner on or about 28.03.2008. Having brought the same to the notice of the Licensing Authority it took the Licensing Authority another year to respond. On or about 18.03.2009 petitioner was directed to deposit licence fee etc. On 24.03.2009, having received the said notice petitioner deposited the licence fee in the Treasury at Sasaram but because of certain reasons could not deposit the same in the Collectorate. It is stated that first the Arms Office did not accept on the plea of strike then for some election. Finally, all requisite photocopies and photographs were deposited on 23.05.2009. In stead of the licence being granted the petitioner has been presently surprised to receive the communication from the Licensing Authority, wherein the District Collector has rejected the application for grant of licence to the petitioner by his order dated 26.07.2009, on the sole ground - 2 - that petitioner did not immediately deposit photocopies of the challan showing deposit of the licence fee nor could deposit the photographs within the time. This Court is not only amazed but amused by the said order. It took more than a year for the District Magistrate-cum- Collector to react to the order of the Divisional Commissioner by which appeal was allowed and his order was set aside. It is not in dispute that the petitioner complied with the formality much before order of cancellation was passed. Having complied, there was no occasion for the Collector then to cancel the licence. This is clearly an arbitrary exercise of power. Filing of papers and photographs is merely formality. Once the licence was already granted, it would have been another matter if the formalities were not completed in spite of notices or reminders. Thus, I have no option but to set aside the order of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Arms Case No.01 of 2009 dated 26.07.2009 (Annexure-5) and allow the writ application with a direction to the respondent-District Magistrate-cum-Collector to forthwith issue the licence to the petitioner consequent to the grant already made. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)