IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.6446 OF 2011 SHEKHAR S/O SRI DAMBER NARAYAN SINGH VILLAGE LALPUR POST OFFICE BHIMNAGAR, POLICE STATION BIRPUR, SUPAUL. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER KOSHI RANGE, SAHARSA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUPAUL 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SUPAUL 5. SDPO, BIRPUR, SUPAUL. ---------------------------------- 5 25.11.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the Commissioner, Koshi Range, Saharsa, in Arms Appeal No. 06 of 2010 upholding order of the Collector, Supaul dated 22.12.2009 rejecting petitioner’s application for grant of arms licence on the ground that (i) he is not a permanent resident of village Lalpur, Post office Bhimnagar, Police station Birpur, District Supaul (ii) he has not given any concrete proof in respect of threat to his life and property (iii) he has not even submitted the details of work executed by him as contractor in last three years. In the concluding part of order dated 22.12.2009, the Collector, Supaul has observed that in view of provision of section 14(3) of the Arms Act, 1959, petitioner’s application for arms licence is refused. 2 The appeal preferred before learned Commissioner, Koshi Range, Saharsa too failed and was dismissed. The petitioner states that the learned Collector, Supaul overlooked the Residential certificate, while observing that he is not a permanent resident of village Lalpur, Police station Birpur. He submits that there has been some misreading whether the Circle officer, Basantpur has ticked the word ‘permanent’ or had struck off the same in the residential certificate dated 26.3.2009 contained in annexure 4. The petitioner submits that Circle officer has ticked the option permanent which would indicate that he is permanent resident of village Lalpur. He further submits that he is a Government contractor and works on highways, and other troubled areas and is persistently receiving extortion calls. The Superintendent of police, Supaul after due enquiry in his report dated 3.2.2007 addressed to Collector, Supaul stated that petitioner possesses good behaviour in society, no case is pending against him and a arms licence is required to be issued in his name for safety of his life and property. The petitioner submits that provisions of section 14(3) of the Arms Act is not attracted in the facts of the case. 3 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The tick mark made on residence certificate by Circle officer, Basantpur (Supaul) is subject of inference, which in my view, can be best explained by Circle officer himself, who would send a fresh report to District Magistrate, Supaul. The learned Collector, Supaul may call for a report from Circle officer, Basantpur and would pass a fresh order on the issue relating to grant of arms licence. It would be open to the petitioner to plead that section 14(3) of the Arms Act would not be applicable. Order passed by learned Collector, Supaul dated 22.12.2009 affirmed by learned Commissioner on 30.11.2010 are set aside with observation aforesaid. The writ petition is allowed to this extent. It is expected that the learned Collector, Supaul would dispose of the matter expeditiously as the application for arms licence is of the year 2006. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)