Letters Patent Appeal No.1219 of 2000 (Against the order dated 7/8/2000 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7051 of 2000) ----------- MUNDRIKA PRASAD SINGH----------Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS--------Respondents -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh No.1 For the State : None ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD HE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN Prasad & Ranjan:jj The writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 7.8.200 passed by the Learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.7051 of 2000 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Short facts giving rise to this appeal are that the writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) was granted arms licence sometime in the year 1971. By order dated 1.11.1993 the District Magistrate cancelled his arms licence. Aggrieved by the same, writ petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner of the Division. The Commissioner by order dated 4.12.1995 modified - 2 - the order of the Collector and directed that the licence of the writ petitioner shall remain suspended for a period of five years from the date of the said order and after expiry of the said period he shall be at liberty to file fresh application which shall be considered by the District Magistrate. It is relevant here to state that the District Magistrate had cancelled the licence on the ground that the writ petitioner was charge sheeted in Sonbarsa P.S. case no. 100 of 1992 under sections 447, 323, 341,479, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and further also in Sonbarsa P.S. case no. 35 of 1993 registered under sections 447, 323, 307, 452, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After expiry of five years, writ petitioner filed application for grant of licence. The District Magistrate called for a report from the Officer-in-charge of Sonbarsa Police Station, who submitted its report. In the report the Officer-in-charge had stated that the writ petitioner is of frivolous nature and takes out the arms casually in order to terrorize the people. Taking into account the - 3 - conduct of the writ petitioner, the District Magistrate declined to grant him licence. Aggrieved by the same, writ petitioner preferred appeal which has been dismissed so also the writ application filed against the aforesaid order. Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the writ petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and he being a responsible person ought to have been granted licence and the District Magistrate erred in refusing to grant licence so also the Commissioner and the learned Single Judge while dismissing the appeal and the writ application respectively. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. Taking into account the suitability and character of the writ petitioner to possesses licence, the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that he is not fit to hold the arms licence. This conclusion of the District Magistrate has been affirmed by the Commissioner in appeal as also by this court in the writ application. We do not find any error in the same. In the result we do not find any merit in - 4 - Patna High Court Dated 10th Sept. 2008 NAFR/Rahman the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly but without any order as to cost. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad,J) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)