IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14869 of 2009 1. OM PRAKASH GUPTA S/O LATE SITA RAM SAHU R/O VILL- JILKAPUR, P.S- KARGAHAR, P.O- GHORDIHA, DISTT- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ROHTAS 4. THE S.D.O., KARGAHAR, ROHTAS 5. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, KARGAHAR, ROHTAS ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Vishal Saurabh, Adv. For the Respondents:- Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, AC to G.A.-1 ------------ 9. 30.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram dated 20.5.2010 refusing to grant him an Arms License in Arms Case No. 82 of 2010. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner held a valid license for a double barrel gun. His father expired on 25.6.1997. Prior to the same, the petitioner on 26.2.1997 had applied for an Arms License in his own name. The petitioner now desires to continue and retain the double barrel gun of his father presently deposited in safe custody. It has been declined notwithstanding the recommendation by the Superintendent of Police. It is submitted that the ground mentioned in the impugned order for refusal to grant license are not 2 germane and extraneous to Section 14 of the Arms Act regulating the grant of license. Learned counsel for the State sought to raise an issue with regard to the correctness of submission of any application by the petitioner dated 26.2.1997. In the view of the Court that issue is no more relevant when the fact is not in dispute on behalf of the State that the Superintendent of Police has made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner. There is a presumption of the petitioner having applied for grant of an Arms License as in absence of the same, the question of any recommendation in his favour does not arise much less a final order for refusal to grant the license. That leaves in question the correctness of the impugned order. Section 14 of the Arms Act specifies the conditions under which the license can be refused. The impugned order rejects the application on the ground that there was no threat perception to the petitioner. That is not one of the grounds mentioned in Section 14. The stand of the State with reference to any executive instruction dated 31.3.2010 of the Union of India is best answered on the proposition that if the grant of license is regulated by any 3 statutory provisions, it has to be considered strictly in accordance therewith and cannot be varied or dis- regarded on basis of any executive instruction. In any event, the respondents have chosen to confront the Court with their own interpretation and application of the executive instruction without even placing it before the Court and then leaving it for the Court to decide. The impugned order of rejection dated 20.5.2010 is therefore not sustainable in law. It is accordingly set aside. The District Magistrate is now required to consider the grant of license to the petitioner in light of the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police and the ground urged by the District Magistrate having been found to be beyond his statutory power by the Court. Let such fresh orders be passed by the District Magistrate within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)