IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12920 of 2009 SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH son of Sri Dwarika Singh, resident of Muhalla S. House, Nutan Nagar, P.S. Civil Line, Dist. Gaya . ….Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar Advocate. For the State : Mr. P.K. Lal, A.C. to S.C. XI ---------- 2 6.10.2009 Petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 9.5.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya in case No. 48 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the application for grant of licence of N.P. bore revolver has been rejected. The impugned order is annexure-1. He also wants quashing of the order dated 14.5.2009 which has been passed by the Commissioner Magadh Range , Gaya in Arms Appeal Case No. 189 of 2008 which has affirmed the order of the District Magistrate, Gaya. Submission of the learned Sr. Counsel is that the petitioner suffers from no infirmity whatsoever even in terms of any of the provisions of the Arms Act to acquire an Arms in question, for which he has made an application in the prescribed proforma before the District Magistrate. Recommendations have been made in favour of the petitioner and he satisfied all the conditions. Verifications have been made by the police and all the documents which the district Magistrate wanted to have a look have been duly submitted by the petitioner. But on a specious ground that the recommendation by the police is not “Sakaratamak” therefor, he decided to reject his application for grant of the license. The Divisional Commissioner has also affirmed the order that is - 2 - speaking order. Counsel for the State submits that the matter has been considered in totality of the facts and circumstances and reason has been assigned in the order in question and the same does not require any interference by this Court. The Court fails to understand as to what kind of recommendation is required to be made by the police to make the petitioner elegible for issuing of licence. If there is nothing reported against the petitioner by the police and no criminal case is pending against him or even against his family members then as a licensing authority it is the District Magistrate who has to apply his mind and pass an order . From the perusal of the order of the District Magistrate it is apparent that probably he was looking for nod in favour of the petitioner by the Police authorities but there is nothing objectionable found by them. The court is constrained to record that the order lacks objectivity and so is the situation with regard to the appellate order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. In view of the same both the impugned orders contained in annexures -1 and II dated 9.5.2008 and 14.5.2009 respectively are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate for fresh consideration. The application is allowed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) M.Rahman