IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7556 of 2004 ***** Vishwa Nath Pandey son of Late Jayram Pandey, Resident of Mouar Lane, Police Station Sultanganj, Town and District Patna. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Home Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Partha Sarthy, Advocate For State of Bihar : Mr. Chhote Lal Nr.Singh, Standing Counsel-I ------------ 17. 13.5.2009. Petitioner is a holder of a license under the Arms Act and deals with the arms and ammunitions. He is authorised in terms with the license issued to him by the licensing authority, which was license no. 2 of 1994 under Form-XI and XII. When the writ application was filed in the year 2004 the subject matter of challenge was a letter No.7/A3- 1043/2002 issued by the Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar. By virtue of the said letter certain reductions came to be made on the quantity of the arms and ammunitions which the petitioner could store and sell at a time. The writ application remained pending for one reason or the other and as time rolled on more developments took-place. Some more orders came to be passed vide communication dated 15.3.2004 contained in Annexure-16 with regard to the quantity of arms etc. in Form-XII as well as the order contained in Annexure-18, Annexure-I dated 27.4.2004 and Annexure-K dated 22.8.2008. The sum essence of the orders issued from time to time has had the effect of reducing the quantity of arms and ammunitions which the petitioner could store and hold at a given time for - 2 - the year in question. Petitioner is more aggrieved because vide order dated 22.8.2008 despite the petitioner initially being given a license, to hold arms and ammunition for the prohibited category, the same stood totally deleted. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the decision of State Government is totally devoid of any reason. These are unilateral orders passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. At least an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given before fixing these quantities came to be passed since the same is detrimental to his commercial interest for which he has a license to deal with. There is also a hint that the decision taken in the matter may not be with due dispassion. The Court on many an occasions, therefore, had issued directions from time to time asking the State authorities to state the reasons or the material behind such decisions. To say the least the various affidavits which came to be filed were least satisfactory if not evasive. Initially the reason sought to be given was that the quantity came to be fixed on the basis of the level of production, of the various Ordinance Factory but then on a closer scrutiny it emerged that the basis was an earlier communication related to the year 1986. The Court was surprised to note that a decision is being taken in the year 2006 based on materials or the situation as it stood more that two decades ago. Subsequent affidavits have come to be filed when the Court took a dim view of the matter but the Court is constrained to record that there has been effort to hide and seek and absence of cogent reasons available in the decision making process, since even the original file was - 3 - called for and examined. The Court is conscious of this fact that the petitioner does not have a fundamental right to claim and demand an open and free dealing in the arms and ammunitions as any other citizen may have under Article 19(1)(g) but even in a regulated trade and activity which are governed by certain rules and regulation no action of the State can be of such kinds which is devoid of any reason or rationale. Since the State in its counter affidavit has failed to provide a satisfactory answer or the reason or the basis behind fixation of the various quantities of arms and ammunitions, the Court has no option but to interfere with the orders, specially the one contained in Annexure-I and K. They stand quashed, writ application is allowed, but the matter is remanded back to the State Government with a direction that they may give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or such other persons who have a vital interest in the matter and after taking into consideration even their point of view a fresh decision may be taken preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)