IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.530 of 2010 1. CHITTARANJAN PRASAD SINGH, PROPRIETOR OF M/S BHOJPUR SHASTRAGAR MANGAL PANDEY ROAD, MAHARANA GARDEN, P.S.- ARA NAWADA, DISTT.- BHOJPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR DEPARTMENT OF HOME (POLICE), BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE HOME SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHOJPUR AT ARRAH 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BHOJPUR AT ARRAH ----------- 2/ 14/03/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.5.2009 refusing to renew his Arms Licence in Form- 11 and 12 on two grounds:- (A) He had failed to apply for renewal in time; (B) Enhancement of the permissible amount of Arms and Cartridges in the licence unauthorizedly without permission of the appropriate authority by committing fraud. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a letter of the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah dated 27.9.2003 addressed to the Commissioner, Patna Division as noticed in the last paragraph of the letter at Page-2 to urge that the petitioner had applied for renewal of the license and that the challan for money deposit was available in records. Therefore, this charge against him did not stand established. Learned counsel next refers to paragraph-16 of the writ petition dealing with the aforesaid pleading and document to submit 2 that in reply to the same paragraph-21 of the counter affidavit says that it has no comments to offer as the matter relates to the Divisional Commissioner. Learned counsel for the State is unable to demonstrate any other appropriate consideration of the letter dated 27.9.2003 either in the impugned order or in the counter affidavit. Insofar as the second ground is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner obtained a copy of his original licence from the records of the authorities themselves under the Right to Information Act bearing the necessary enhancement. Learned counsel for the State submits from paragraph-15 of the counter affidavit that it would not be sufficient to presume correctness of the recitals in the licence when records do not reveal any application received from the petitioner for enhancement. The matter with regard to the so-called enhancement was pending a Vigilance Enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates and disputes the correctness of the contention in the counter affidavit based on the pleadings in the writ petition that enhancement was in accordance with law. Be that as it may, there is no occasion for the Court to deal with that aspect of the matter which 3 requires examination of facts, documents and, if necessary, taking of evidence also. On the own showing of the petitioner, the respondents are yet to reach a conclusive opinion by a Vigilance Enquiry. The first ground for refusing renewal of licence having been held to be not sustainable, the second ground held to be premature at this stage, the petitioner is held entitled to a conditional licence insofar as ground-B is concerned. It is now up to the respondents to decide how quick they wish to act and conclude the Vigilance Enquiry. Needless to state that any licence issued to the petitioner in the meantime, provided there are no other objections in the law, shall remain dependent for its survival on the report to be submitted by the Vigilance Department. Let this order be complied with within a maximum period of two months by issuance of such conditional licence. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)