IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13529 of 2010 ABHISHEK KUMAR S/O SRI SHYAM KISHORE SINGH, R/O VILL. - MACHHA, P.S.-MUFFASSIL (SINGHAULO.P.), DISTT- BEGUSARAI. …….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. COMMISSIONER, MUNGER DIVISION, MUNGER 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE , BEGUSARAI 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE , BEGUSARAI 6. SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, BEGUSARAI 7. SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, SADAR, BEGUSARAI 8. INSPECTOR OF POLICE , SADAR, BEGUSARAI 9. OFFICER INCHARGE , SINGHAUL P.S., DISTT-BEGUSARAI …….. Respondents ----------- 3. 30.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 11.09.2009 (Annexure-2) passed by the District Magistrate, Begusarai (Respondent No. 4) in Arms Licence Case No. 45 of 2008 as well as order dated 12.05.2010 (Annexure-1) passed by Divisional Commissioner, Munger (Respondent no. 3) in Arms Appeal No. 8 of 2010 by which the application as well as the appeal of the petitioner for grant of arms licence for a pistol was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a contractor and a social worker having his ancestral house at village Machha, P.S.-Singhaul in the district of Begusarai. It is further stated that he applied for an arms licence for pistol 2 whereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Begusarai called for a report from the Officer-in-charge, Singhaul Out Post vide Letter dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure-3) in response of which the Officer- in-Charge, Singhaul O.P. made enquiries and recommended for grant of licence in his report dated 27.02.2008 (Annexure-4) and the same was sent to the Inspector of Police , Begusarai on the same day i.e. on 27.02.2008 (Annexure-5). The Inspector of Police also made enquiries and submitted his report dated 02.04.2008 (Annexure-6) to Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Begusarai, who after enquiry sent his report dated 02.05.2008 (Annexure-7) to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Begusarai recommending for grant of licence. It is further claimed that the Sub Divisional Officer sent the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai on 28.05.2008((Annexure-8) whereafter the Superintendent of Police also at his level made enquiries and sent letter dated 05.08.2008 (Annexure-9) to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Begusarai recommending for grant of licence. 4. From all the aforesaid reports and recommendations of the authorities concerned, it clearly shows that the petitioner had no criminal antecedent and there was no fear of disturbance of peace by him or misuse of arms and also that the petitioner has a place to keep the arms at his ancestral place. In spite of the aforesaid fact, the District Magistrate, Begusarai (Respondent no. 4) vide his order dated 11.09.2009 rejected the application of the petitioner bearing Arms Licence Case No. 45 of 3 2008 only on the ground that petitioner could not show any special reason for grant of licence nor he could indicate any threat or coercion having been faced by him. 5. Against the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate, Begusarai, the petitioner filed Arms Appeal No. 08 of 2010 before the Divisional Commissioner, Munger (Respondent no. 3), who also rejected the claim of the petitioner vide his impugned order dated 12.05.2010(Annexure-1) merely on the ground that the petitioner could not produce any new fact which could be considered and hence, it was presumed that the order of the District Magistrate was legal and proper. 6. The aforesaid authorities committed serious error in ignoring that the authorities who made enquiries had specifically found that the petitioner was a contractor and a social worker and had a house at Mauza Machha in the district of Begusarai. It was also found by the authorities that the petitioner had no criminal antecedent and hence it is clear that there was neither any fear of disturbance of peace nor there could be any valid apprehension of misuse of the arms by him. 7. Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1955 is the provision for grant of licence. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that the provision of Sub sections 1 & 2 of Section 13 were fully complied. So far the provision of Sub-section 2(A) is concerned, it is provided that the licensing authority after such enquiry and after considering the report received under Sub- 4 section 2 shall subject to other provisions of this Chapter by order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same. In view of the aforesaid provision of law, there is no occasion or reason at all to refuse the grant of licence. The other provisions of Chapter-III of the Act, which contains several sections including Section 13 also do not provide any bar for grant of any licence to the petitioner. 8. So far the necessity of grant of licence is concerned, the petitioner being a contractor and a social worker obviously had the necessity of having a pistol with him for his personal safety and security. Furthermore, in these days when the production and use of illicit arms and ammunitions for grievous offences is rampant without being controlled by the authority concerned, the necessity for providing licence of arms to the civilized section of the society appears to have increased. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as in view of the admitted reports of the authorities concerned in favour of the petitioner, the impugned orders of the District Magistrate, Begusarai and the Divisional Commissioner, Munger are clearly against the spirit of the provisions of law mentioned above and there was no occasion for the said authorities to reject the petitioner’s application for grant of licence of pistol. 10. Accordingly, both the aforesaid impugned orders of the Collector and the Commissioner are hereby quashed and the authorities concerned are directed to consider the application of the 5 petitioner for grant of licence of pistol positively in view of the aforesaid findings. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Sujit (S.N.Hussain, J.)