IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2014 of 2010 1. JITENDRA SINGH S/O LATE AWADH BIHARI SINGH R/O VILL. + P.O. AMAURA, P.S.- KARAKAT, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ROHTAS, BIHAR 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ROHTAS ----------- 02. 18.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State. The petitioner desiring to retain the licensed weapon of his father after the latters demise applied for an arms license which was rejected ex-parte on 5.9.2006. On appeal, the Commissioner remanded the matter to the District Magistrate on 6.1.2009. The licensing authority has again rejected the application on 26.7.2009 on the ground that the petitioner lacked any threat perception. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is completely without jurisdiction and beyond the statutory powers of the licensing authority. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner should move in Appeal before the Commissioner again and the writ petition at this stage is not maintainable. It is next submitted relying on Section 14 (1) (3) of the Arms Act that the licensing authority can reject the application „for any reason‟, if he opines that the applicant was unfit for grant of a license. 2 The submission that the petitioner should go in Appeal before the Commissioner again is rejected by the Court. The litigation has to be given a finality. The petitioner cannot be made to shuffle between the appellate authority and the original authority especially when it was an ex-parte order. The refusal to grant of an arms license must be within the statutory parameters of Section 14 of the Arms Act. Absence of any threat perception is not one of the grounds mentioned therein. The submission that the licensing authority has a carte blanche in Section 14 (1) (3) to reject the arms license for any reason is difficult to uphold. He does not possess arbitrary, unguided and unregulated powers. If threat perception is not one of the grounds to be found under the Arms Act as a pre-condition for grant of an arms license, a correct interpretation of the aforesaid provision shall only be that if an applicant is found to be not entitled for an arms license under any provision of the Act, the licensing authority has discretion to apply its independent mind to other provisions of the Act also to reject the application. “Other reasons” do not permit the Licensing Authority to travel beyond the statutory provisions. The impugned order dated 26.7.2009 in Case No. 815 of 2006 is accordingly set aside. 3 The petitioner is not required to submit any fresh application. However the respondents are directed to complete necessary formalities afresh within a maximum period of two months and dispose off the petitioner‟s application for arms license within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)