IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14790 of 2006 Ajay Kumar Singh, son of Shri Chandradeo Singh, Proprietor, M/S Bharat Sahkari Shastragar, Arms and Ammunitions Dealer, Bottom Bridge, G.B. Road, Gaya and resident of Kalawati Bhawan, Geval Bihga, Gaya… ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Old Secretariat, Patna, 2. The Joint Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Old Secretariat, Patna, 3. The Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, 4. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya, 5. The District Magistrate, Gaya…. …. Respondents …………….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Priyadarshi, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Tanya Mishra, A.C. to G.P. 18 4 09.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of memo no. 6950 dated 5.7.2006 as contained in Annexure 4, whereby the license no. 6 of 1997 granted to him under Form XII has been renewed from 1998 till 2005. It has been stated in paragraph no. 7 that petitioner upon grant of License No. 6 of 1997, was authorized to sell or purchase about 400 numbers of rifles with 35000 ammunitions as well as 150 2 numbers of revolvers with 5000 ammunitions for the same and 150 pistols along with 5000 ammunitions. However, in the order of renewal he has only been allowed to deal in 30 rifles with 5000 ammunitions, 10 revolvers with 1000 ammunitions and 10 pistols with 1000 ammunitions. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no reason has been assigned for reducing the number of aforesaid arms and ammunitions in the renewal order. Learned counsel further submits that a reference of order dated 13.11.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6426/1999 has been given in the renewal order (order is appended as Annexure 2) though the same was filed by the petitioner against the cancellation of his License No. 5 of 1997 given under Form no. XI, i.e., not with regard to present license. A direction was given in that case that license should be renewed after deleting the unauthorized entries relating to prohibited bore arms. However, though the petitioner was not dealing with any prohibited arms with respect to Form XII 3 license, the number of arms and ammunitions has drastically been reduced. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. A stand has been taken in paragraph 8 thereof that in view of the policy decision of the government communicated vide letter no. 9393 dated 11.9.1986 as contained in Annexure B thereof, the quantity of rifles , revolvers and pistols and their respective ammunitions have been reduced. It has been stated that in the aforesaid letter, the maximum quantity of arms and ammunitions for grant of license under Form XII has been indicated. However, upon reading of that Annexure B, it appears that upon objection being raised by ordinance factories concerned with regard to lower minimum fixed quantity for the license for the license holder, the minimum quantity appears to have been fixed therein along with compatible ammunitions. Thus, the stand taken by the respondents does not appear to be correct. Be that as it may, it appears from the perusal of impugned order as contained in 4 Annexure 4, that no reason has been assigned for such reduction of quantity therein and prior to reducing such quantity it does not appear that any information was given or show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In above view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, the renewal order dated 5.7.2006 as contained in Annexure 4 cannot be sustained in law. However, it is common ground that the renewal was only for the period 1998-05 which has already lapsed and there would be no necessity for quashing the same. Thus, the authorities are directed that in case a fresh application for renewal is made by the petitioner under Form XII, the authorities would not be guided by the aforesaid Annexure 4 and consider the case on its own merit and in accordance with law and in view of the finding recorded in this order regarding Annexure B. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)