IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10396 of 2007 ANUJ KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 21.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to A.A.G. X for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 27.4.2007 and 13.2.2007 respectively passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division and the District Magistrate, Patna, by which the appeal and application filed by the petitioner for grant of Arms licence have been rejected, and for consequential directions. The petitioner applied for licence of N.P. bore rifle on 5.6.2006. It is stated that the Inspector of Sultangaj Police Station and the Deputy Superintendent of Police have given their reports in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated that the State Bank of India, Exhibition Road, Patna has also given a certificate on 13.4.2006 that the petitioner is a partner of M/s. Patna Fresh Fish and Company and sole proprietor of M/s. United Fish Traders and his credit and debit transaction routed through two accounts during financial year 2005-06, was more than Rupees Ten Crores. However, by the impugned order dated 13.2.2007, the application of the petitioner for grant of licence was rejected by the District Magistrate and on appeal before the Commissioner, the said order was affirmed by the impugned order dated 27.4.2007. It is pointed out that earlier, the District Magistrate had also rejected the application of the petitioner by order dated 5.6.2006, which was however set aside, on appeal, by the Commissioner with a direction 2 to dispose of the same by a reasoned order whereupon the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid facts that the petitioner was a business man and he has to carry substantial amounts of money with him, the District Magistrate has wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of licence of N.P. Bore rifle. It is submitted that mere possession of a revolver by the petitioner cannot be a sufficient ground for rejection of his application. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, points out that the authorities have acted in the present matter on a consideration of all the relevant facts and thus, there is no illegality in their orders. It is stated that in the police report, no specific threat perception has been mentioned and further that the petitioner was in possession of a licence for a revolver from before and he was also holding weapon against the same. In the said circumstances, learned counsel submits that the authorities have exercised their discretion in a just and fair manner. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any reason for interfering with the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner. In a writ jurisdiction, this Court has only to see whether the concerned authorities have exercised their discretion under the statute taking into account relevant materials and not deciding on irrelevant considerations. It is further to be seen whether the person 3 concerned has been given a fair opportunity in the matter. The impugned order itself discloses proper application of mind. This Court does not find any fault in the orders impugned. Thus, there is no merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)