IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5140 of 2010 UMESH KUMAR CHAUBEY S/O SRI BISWANATH CHOUBEY R/O VILL CHUNI, P.S.BUXAR (M), DISTT-BUXAR. -----------------Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BUXAR 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BUXAR 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BUXAR 6. THE ARMS MAGISTRATE, BUXAR 7. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, P.S.BUXAR (M) ---------------------Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Jagdish Prasad No. 1. Mr. Anirudha Mishra, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Sajal K. Sinha, AC to GP. 17 ------------- 6. 06.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 27.4.2004 (Annexure-5) passed by the District Magistrate, Buxar (respondent no. 3) rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of licence for D.B.B.L Gun and also for quashing order dated 16.09.2009 (Annexure-7) by which the Commissioner, Patna Division (respondent no. 2) dismissed Arms Appeal No. 71 of 2009 filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the District Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has 2 claimed that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case and his application for grant of the aforesaid licence has been passed by all the authorities concerned, and the Superintendent of Police also vide his order dated 16.06.2003 has placed his recommendation before the Collector on the basis of the enquiry report of the authorities concerned, which was in favour of the petitioner. Hence, he submits that the entire report and recommendations being in favour of the petitioner there was no occasion for the District Magistrate to reject the application of the petitioner by a cryptic order dated 27.4.2004 (Annexure-5) without mentioning anything and only noting “rejected”. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appellate authority has also not considered the said points raised by the petitioner and has rejected the appeal only on the ground of delay failing to appreciate that C.W.J.C. No. 9549 of 2005 was pending and was withdrawn on 20.01.2009 with a liberty to file appeal. 4. In view of order dated 23.08.2010 learned counsel for the respondents has produced the enquiry report vide letter no. 1612 dated 16.06.2003 of the Superintendent of Police, Buxar 3 along with relevant materials in Court which clearly shows that there is nothing against the petitioner and the report has also been given in his favour on the basis of which the Superintendent of Police had made recommendations on 16.06.2003. In the counter affidavit also nothing has been mentioned on behalf of the respondents to show that there was anything against the petitioner on the basis of which his application of arms licence can legally be rejected. 5. So far the delay is concerned, it is quite apparent from order dated 20.01.2009 (Annexure-6) that C.W.J.C. No. 9549 of 2005 which was filed in the year 2005 was disposed of on 20.01.2009 and the Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said appeal with a liberty to avail the remedy of appeal as provided in law. It further transpires that immediately after the said order the petitioner filed Arms Appeal No. 71 of 2009 before the Divisional Commissioner, hence there was no question of any delay and the presumption of the commissioner that it is a tactics used by such persons in majority to time barred cases, was absolutely unwarranted and irrelevant in view of the order passed by a Bench of this Court on 20.01.2009 4 (Annexure-6) and it appears that the commissioner was unable to understand the import of the order of this Court. It is a very sorry State of affairs that such a senior officer like Commissioner of the division decides such matters merely on the basis of whims and fancies. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the order of the Collector dated 27.04.2004 (Annexure-5) as well as the order of the Commissioner dated 16.09.2009 are absolutely illegal, arbitrary and perverse and are accordingly quashed. The District Magistrate is directed to immediately pass an appropriate order within 15 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, in view of the report of the authorities concerned, and the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, already on record. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ petition is allowed. Anand Kr. ( S. N. Hussain, J.)