IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14113 of 2004 LAKSHMAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 12.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.6.1999 passed by the District Magistrate cancelling his arms licnece as affirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 31.8.2004. Learned counsel submits that the F.I.R. primarily relates to the allegation between rival Bus owners competing to protect their commercial interest with regard to the timings of their Bus running under permits. Apparently, no one has been injured. The petitioner is one of the 35 persons who are alleged to have indulged in the fracas. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no scientific analysis of the question whether his fire-arm was at all used or not when more particularly the petitioner has denied the allegation against him. Additionally the order of the District Magistrate itself states that from the allegations in the first information report the issue was not clear with regard to the petitioner when he called for a report from the Superintendent of Police. The report submitted on 31.12.1998 by letter no. 6183 to the District Magistrate does not state anything with regard to the petitioner while it refers to the show cause filed by the co-accused Rajendra Prasad Singh. The report of the Superintendent of Police is the only material on basis of which the Licensing Authority has cancelled the licence of the - 2 - petitioner. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram. From the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit all that surfaces is that the incident had occurred with regard to the rivalry between the Bus owners. No other material has been placed on record either from the impugned order or from the counter affidavits that a finding had been arrived at that the fire-arm of the petitioner has been used or that empty cartridges were even recovered from the spot. Though the right to hold a fire-arm licence is a statutory right, the same cannot be interfered except in accordance with law. In the background of the materials that there has been no scientific analysis of the petitioner’s fire-arm to record the satisfaction of its use at the occurrence, the absence of any fire-arm injury to any one, petitioner not being one of the Bus owners, the report of the Superintendent of Police being silent with regard to the petitioner and on basis of which the licence came to be cancelled, this Court is not satisfied that the impugned order of cancellation is sustainable It shall depend on the facts of each case if one incident or episode was sufficient to consider threat to public peace and safety. There can be no straight jacket formula. The present is certainly not one such case. In the entirety, this Court is satisfied that the order is thus arbitrary. It does not appear from the materials on record that the petitioner has ever been subjected to proceedings under the Arms Act with regard to - 3 - his fire-arm licence and he is stated to have no criminal antecedents. This Court finds it difficult to uphold the impugned orders regarding their conclusion that in the circumstances to allow the petitioner to retain his fire-arms’ licence would be detrimental to public peace and safety. Clearly the impugned order goes beyond the statutory limitations. The application is allowed. The impugned orders dated 15.6.1999 and 31.8.2004 are, accordingly, quashed. This shall, however, no preclude the authorities from proceeding against the petitioner appropriately in law, should the occasion arise. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)