IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9460 of 2006 Shitesh Kumar Son of late Ram Nevaj Singh resident of village Sarhanchiya, P.S. Aurai District Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Commissioner Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 5. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur. 8. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East Muzaffarpur 9. The Arms Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. ----------- 2 23/01/2009 In sum and substance the prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 23.08.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur whereby the prayer of the petitioner for grant of arms licence has been rejected. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 22.3.2006 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur whereby the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. In view of the order which I propose to pass in this writ application, it is inexpedient to give the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the petitioner filed an application for grant of arms licence. The licencing authority rejected his prayer only on the ground that it is not expedient to grant him the licence. However, no reason at all has been assigned. In the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order the Divisional Commissioner rejected the appeal with the observation that he might have been in favour of granting arms licence to the petitioner but not being the licencing authority he cannot do so. In this connection his observation is as follows : “Considering the facts and circumstances of the - 2 - case, I might be in favour of granting arms license to this appellant but I am not the licensing authority. We gather an arms license should be granted or not within the frame work of law depending more on the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate as licensing authority and not of the commissioner as appellate authority. The appellate authority cannot impose his opinion on the licensing authority against his will. Therefore, the role of the appellate authority basically is confine to decide whether the impugned order is in accordance with law and the principle of natural justice.” Mr. Mukul Kumar appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the District Magistrate had rejected the prayer for grant of arms licence without assigning any reason and on its own finding the Divisional Commissioner ought to have directed for grant of arms licence. He submits that on these counts the orders of the District Magistrate and that of the Divisional Commissioner are vitiated in law. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, G.A. II appearing on behalf of the State submits that the District Magistrate being satisfied that the petitioner is not the person who deserves to be granted licence, rejected the prayer for grant of licence. Having appreciated the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Mukul Kumar that the order of the District Magistrate does not indicate as to how it is inexpedient to grant license to the petitioner. Though, it is within the domain of the District Magistrate to grant or not to grant licence to an applicant but while doing so he has to assign reason in terms of the provisions of the Arms Act as to why he does not consider a particular case fit for grant of licence. The order of the District Magistrate does not satisfy the - 3 - aforesaid requirement. Accordingly, the order of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner cannot be allowed to stand and the matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate for reconsideration in accordance with law. He shall now proceed to consider the prayer of the petitioner bearing in mind the observation aforesaid. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and respondent no. 5, the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, is directed to consider the prayer of the petitioner in accordance with law. (C. K. Prasad, ACJ.) AMIN