IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6581 of 2009 Sweetty Kumari @ Rekha wife of Sri Shailendra Kumar, resident of Mohalla- Munna Chak, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar (Kankarbagh), Town & District- Patna. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through Home Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, North- West Gandhi Maidan, Golghar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Patna. ----------- 02. 06.09.2011 None appears on behalf of the State. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.09.2001 passed by the respondent no.3 (District Magistrate, Patna) in Misc. Case No. 2/99, as contained in Annexure-1, whereby the petitioner‟s application for grant of N.P. bore rifle has been rejected. The quashing of the order dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna in Arms Appeal No. 342/2007, as contained in Annexure-2, has also been prayed for, whereby the order of the District Magistrate has been upheld. The petitioner applied for license of non- prohibited bore rifle on 09.08.1995, whereupon the police report was called for from the Patrakar Nagar P.S. by the order of the Arms Magistrate. The police report was submitted by the Officer-in-charge, Patrakar 2 Nagar P.S. on 20.08.1996, as contained in Annexure-4. The said recommendation of the Officer-in-charge was also approved by the Dy. S.P. on 25.02.1997 which was subsequently recommended by the Sr. S.P., Patna vide letter no. 57(GO) dated 08.03.1999. When the petitioner‟s application for license could not be disposed off then the petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5219/1998 which was disposed off on 05.07.1999 with a direction to the authority to dispose of the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of the order. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner‟s application was also recommended by the Arms Magistrate even then the petitioner‟s application was not disposed off within the stipulated time frame as fixed by trial court. The petitioner then filed a contempt application being M.J.C. No. 1415 of 2000 and after receiving the contempt notice, the petitioner‟s application was rejected by the District Magistrate, Patna on 3 05.02.2001 on the ground that the petitioner‟s annual income is Rs. 60,000/-, hence, prima facie there is no possibility of threat to the property of the petitioners. Moreover, no specific reason has been assigned and the report of the Officer-in-charge was doubted on the ground that it does not stipulate the specific cause of threat. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows :- vkosfndk }kjk lefiZr bUde VSDl fjVZu dh Nk;k izfr ls Li"C gS fd vkosfndk dh okf"kZd vk; yxHkx 60]000A& lkB gtkj #i;k gSA bruh de vk; okys O;fDr ds lEifRr dh vlqj{kk izFke nz"VO;k ugha fn[krk gS] tcrd fd dksbZ ;LisflfQd dkj.k dk mYys[k u gksA vkosfndk dh vksj ls u rks vius ewy vkosnu esa vkSj u rks vius ewy vkosnu esa vkSj u rks fjTokbaMj esa gh dksbZ LisflfQd dkj.k dk mYys[k u gksA vkosfndk dh vksj ls u rks vius ewy vkosnu esa vkSj u rks fjTokbaMj esa gh dksbZ LisflfQd dkj.k mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gSA Fkkuk izHkkjh }kjk vkosfndk ds fo:) dksbZ izfrdwy bUnzkt ugha gksus rFkk O;olk; dks ysdj 'kkjhfjd ,oa vkfFkZd {kfr dh laHkkouk cus jguk izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gSA D;k flD;wfjVh FkzsV gS ? bl laca/k esa Fkkuk izHkkjh dk dksbZ izfrosnu ugha gSA ojh; vkj{kh v/kh{kd] iVuk }kjk 4 vkosfndk ds vkosnu i= dks vuq”aflr Hkh ugha fd;k x;kA of.kZr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa vkosfndk dk vkosnu i= vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA The said order was challenged by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8132 of 2001 when the order of the District Magistrate dated 16.08.2001 was quashed and it was directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and dispose off the application for grant of license within a period of two weeks of the receipt/production of the copy of the order which gave rise to the passing of the impugned order by the District Magistrate on 04.09.2001, as contained in Annexure-1, on the ground that the petitioner suppressed this fact that her husband had a licence hence from before, she has given wrong information, and the said act is averse to public peace and public security. The further ground was taken that the petitioner could not produce any specific proof with regard to her involvement in political, social, educational and commercial organization nor it is specific from the police report that the petitioner is facing threat from any extremist organization or 5 fundamentalists or from any dreaded criminal and it was furthermore stated that the petitioner has not proved good reason for grant of license, hence in the public interest, since the petitioner concealed the facts, the District Magistrate found the claim of the petitioner not fit for grant of license, which reads as follows:- vkosfndk us Hkh vius 'kL= vkosnu fnukad 09-08-1995 ,oa iwjd vkosnu i= fnukad 22- 08-1996 esa ifr ds uke ls 'kL= vuqKfIr gksus laca/kh rF; dks Nqik;k gSA ,slh efgyk tks 'kL= vuqKk inkf/kdkjh dks tku&cw> dj xyr lwpuk ns] oSls dks 'kL= vuqKfIr fuxZr djus ls yksd 'kkfUr ,oa yksd lqj{kk ij izfrdwy izHkko iM+us dh laHkkouk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA vkosfndk }kjk fofHkUu jktuhfrd] lkekftd] 'kS{kf.kd ,oa okf.kT;d laLFkkvksa ls tqM+s jgus dk nkok rks fd;k x;k gS ysfdu vius nkos dh iqf"V gsrq dksbZ fo’oluh; lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA lk{; ds vHkko esa ;g Li"V ugha gks ldk fd mudh jktuhfrd lfdz;krk fdlh ny ls gS vFkok fdlh izfrcaf/kr jktuhfrd laLFkku ls ? Fkkuk izHkkjh] i=dkj uxj }kjk izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gS fd vkosfndk ,d f’kf{kr] O;olkf;d ,oa lkekftd efgyk gSa ftUgsa O;olk; dks ysdj 'kkjhfjd ,oa vkfFkZd {kfr dh laHkkouk 6 cuh jgrh gSA ojh; vkj{kh v/kh{kd] iVuk us ek= Fkkuk izHkkjh ds mDr vuq’kalk dks vxzlkfjr dj fn;k gSA viuk earO; vafdr ugha fd;k gSA iqfyl izfrosnu ls ;g Li"V ugha gksrk gS fd vkosfndk dks fdlh mxzoknh laxBu vFkok fdlh Fundamentalist laxBu vFkok dq[;kr vijkf/k;ksa dk Hk; gksA of.kZr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwa fd vkosfndk ds ikl 'kL= vuqKfIr izkIr djus ds fy, ;Fks"V dkj.k (Good reasons) ugha gS rFkk yksdfgr esa rF; dks Nqikus okyh efgyk dks 'kL= vuqKfIr nsuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA It is contended by the petitioner that she was not aware about her husband‟s involvement in the criminal case moreover the application form also did not contain any clause about furnishing of such information. Subsequently, it is also contended that the police authority and the administration recommended for grant of license to the petitioner and the provisions of the Arms Act also does not stipulate that if the husband is involved or convicted in any criminal case, then the wife cannot be granted arms license. It is further submitted that since, the petitioner has approached this Court several times, 7 hence, the claim of the petitioner for grant of arms license has not been considered in true perspective and within the ambit of the provisions as stipulated under Section 13 and 14 of the Arms Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). Section 13 prescribes the provisions relating to grant of license, sub-section 2 of Section 13 of the Act stipulates that on receipt of an application the licensing authority has to call for a report from the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station. Section 13 (2A) stipulates that the licensing authority has the power to make further enquiry. Section 14 of the Act stipulates the grounds on which the arms license can be refused by the authorities. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it appears that the report was called for from the Patrakar Nagar Police Station and Patrakar Nagar Police Station made recommendation in favour of the petitioner since there was threat to the petitioner and the said recommendation was further approved by Dy. S.P. and S.P., as well as Arms Magistrate but, there is nothing on record to suggest that the licensing authority made 8 any further enquiry after the matter was remanded. The right to get an arms license is an individual right. If the husband of the petitioner got involved in a criminal case which ultimately resulted into executing a bond for keeping good behaviour for a year that cannot be a ground for refusal of the license to the petitioner because threat to life and property may be collective or individual. The ground of rejection, that specific threat has not been brought out either by the police or by the petitioner, is absolutely misconceived and the same has been deprecated by this Court in the case of Amrendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. as reported in 2007(4), B.B.C.J., V-244 which reads as follows :- “The only ground given is that even though the petitioner had valid recommendations from all concerned he had failed to file any cogent documentary evidence in support of any threat to him. A bare perusal of the order shows total non- application of mind. This Court wonders what the learned licensing 9 authority means by the aforesaid. Does he mean that an arms licence would only be granted if there has been threat to life and property or does he mean that people have to be killed in order to qualify for getting arms licence? I am afraid. He has totally misconstrued his jurisdiction in this regard. An arms licence is for protection and is a statutory right. It is not dependent on any actual incident having occurred. For if that were so the Act and the Rules framed thereunder would have clearly specified that as a policy for grant of licence. That is not so. It is not a grant of privilege by the licensing authority on his own sole subjective discretion”. Hence, substantive proof of threat to life cannot be a precondition for consideration/issuance of Arms license. Section 13 of the Arms Act prescribes 10 the licensing authority to consider the license on the basis of the police report, then the licensing authority ought to have acted on the same or got the further enquiry done but nothing in the impugned order reflects that any further enquiry has been done, hence this Court is of view that both, District Magistrate and Divisional Commissioner passed the order mechanically and contrary to the parameters as incorporated in Sections 13 and 14 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, both impugned orders, as contained in Annexure- 1 and 2 are set aside. It is expected that the District Magistrate will consider the claim of issuance of arms license of the petitioner within a period of two months of receipt/production of the copy of the order absolutely within the parameters of the Arms Act. With the above observation, this writ application is allowed. Amrendra/ (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)