Letters Patent Appeal No.508 OF 2007 ------ Against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 04.01.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5435 of 2004. ------- 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Home Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary to Government of Bihar, Department of Home (Police) Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. … … Appellants/Respondents. Versus M/S Rajdhani Arms through its Partner Md. Abu Basar, son of Late Hakim Abdul Khair, resident of Mohalla- Agarwa, Police Station-Town (Motihari), East Champaran, Bihar … … Respondent/Petitioner. For the Appellant :- Mr. Chhote Lal Nr. Singh Standing Counsel No. I Mr. Mohan Kr. Singh, A.C. to S.C.I. For the Respondent :- Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Walliur Rahman, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA Shiva Kirti Singh & B. P. Verma,JJ. Heard the parties. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar and its officials against the judgment and order dated 04.01. 2007, whereby the Writ Court allowed C.W.J.C. No. 5435 of 2004 preferred by the respondents and quashed the order dated 23/25th March, 2004, appended as Annexure-14 to the writ petition and also the show cause notice dated 23rd March, 2004, appended as Annexure-15 to the writ petition. 3. Relevant facts may be noticed only in brief. 2 The writ petitioner (respondent herein) was granted a licence to deal in arms and ammunitions by the competent authority, the State of Bihar on 18. 03. 2002. The limit of arms and ammunitions mentioned in the licence was not to the extent desired by the writ petitioner hence, he made an application before the competent authority for increasing the quantity which he could hold as dealer under the licence. This prayer was accompanied with the recommendation of the District Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran, dated 02. 08. 2001. The said prayer was rejected by the order as contained in Annexure-14 of the writ petition on three grounds; (i) it was held that petitioner had not yet started business; (ii) partner of the petitioner’s firm was an accused in a criminal case and (iii) that quantity of arms and ammunitions permitted under petitioner’s licence was in accordance with the department letter dated 11. 09. 1986. 4. A show cause notice was issued vide Annexure 15 as to why petitioner’s arm licence be not cancelled on the sole ground that partner of the firm, Md. Abu Basar was an accused in a case of murder of 1982. 5. Learned writ court considered the undisputed facts brought on record by the writ petitioner and the respondents and it came to a finding that ‘ No objection Certificate’ was required for starting the business and the writ petitioner started his business immediately after ‘No objection 3 Certificate’ was received without any delay or laches. In respect of second ground relating to a criminal case, the facts disclosed that partner of the writ petitioner firm Md. Abu Basar had been acquitted in that case as far back as in the year 1988. A copy of judgment dated 23. 05. 1988 was brought on record as Annexure-16 to the writ petition. With respect to the third ground, the writ court, after perusing the Department’s letter dated 11. 09. 1986, found that the said letter prescribed the minimum quantity of arms and ammunitions which an arms dealer was required to keep. On that basis, it was rightly felt by the writ court that authorities were not bound to reject the application for increasing the limit of arms and ammunitions. If that letter prescribed the maximum limit and if the licence already indicated the maximum quantity, the matter could have been different but on the basis of minimum limit prescribed, the prayer for increasing the limit could not have been rejected by placing reliance upon such letter alone. 6. After hearing the parties, we would find that the writ court had committed no mistake in remitting back the matter to the State Government for reconsidering the petitioner’s application for enhancement of the limit of arms and ammunitions under the licence. 7. Through an Interlocutory Application bearing No. 4631/06, the show cause notice as contained in Annexure- 15 of the writ petition had also been challenged and once the 4 writ court found that the criminal case had ended in acquittal as long back in the year 1988, it had no option but to quash such show cause notice also. 8. Hence, we find no good reasons to interfere with the reasonings and inferences of the writ court. Accordingly, the appeal has to be dismissed. We order accordingly. 9. However, it is clarified that there should be no confusion in the mind of any of the authorities that the recommendation by the District Magistrate, Motihari, dated 02. 08. 2001, appended as Annexure-8 to the writ petition has to be treated only as a letter of recommendation and it would be open for the authorities to take a proper decision in respect of request of the writ petitioner on the basis of all the relevant materials in accordance with law. Such decision should be taken expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today. Patna High Court The 18th February, 2010 N.A.F.R./m.p. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Birendra Prasad Verma,J.)