IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16952 of 2009 1. ARJUN PRASAD S/O BULKAN PRASAD R/O VILL- BHADRU BIGHA, P.S. NAGARNAUSA, DISTT. NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY HOME DEPTT. OF HOME, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NALANDA 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Anjani Pd. Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Fazal Rahman, Adv. -------------- 2. 13.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate dated 23.9.2001, in Arms Case No. 4 of 1991, declining grant of licence as affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, Patna Division in Revision Case No. 92 of 2001 dated 3.10.2009. It is submitted that the order of the District Magistrate suffers from perversity when it states that the petitioner had dragged the proceedings for 10 long years. It is submitted that the order of the District Magistrate is vague and not specific with regard to the reasons why the petitioner was not fit for grant of an Arms licence. The appellate order is completely non-speaking with regard to the statutory conditions for grant of a licence. Counsel for the State finds himself at a loss to demonstrate from the impugned orders, any discussion of 2 the nature of the materials available on which the conclusion that the petitioner was a powerful person with criminal antecedent was based. There is no discussion of any conduct of the petitioner more less any specific instances except what appears to have been the statement of the Special Public Prosecutor. Likewise, the allegation is that he threatened witnesses. There is again no detail of the case, the manner of threat etc. to make it relevant not to grant him an Arms licence. If there was a criminal case against him and had been compromised, surely it cannot be a ground to refuse an Arms licence. The power to grant or refusal licence is provided for in Section-14 of the Arms Act. Undoubtedly, one of the grounds to satisfaction of the licensing authority is of the appellant being unfit for the licence or that denial of licence was necessary for security of public peace or public safety. The right to possess Arms is not fundamental but is regulated by statutory provisions. However, it is not the absolute satisfaction of the licensing authority, but satisfaction to be exercised within the limits of discretion regulated by the statutory provisions in accordance with law for germane and relevant reasons. It has already been noticed that the findings recorded in the order impugned are vague, unsubstantiated without reference to any particular acts or occurrences. The words ‘unfit’ ‘public 3 peace’ or ‘public safety’ enshrined in Section 14 of the Arms Act are not an absolute discretion to be exercised at whims and fancies but is to be based on an order reasoned in nature, displaying due consideration of mind taking into consideration relevant materials and ignoring irrelevant materials. The order as it stands is unsustainable as it seeks to take into consideration extraneous materials leaving out relevant materials for consideration. The impugned orders dated 23.9.2001 and 3.10.2009 are accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the licensing authority to consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of Arms licence afresh in accordance with law and dispose it by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)