AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
“1.That this is an application for quashing the order dated 19.09.2024 passed in Arms Appeal Case No. 194 of 2024 by the Commissioner Patna Division, Patna whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 04.08.2023 contained in Memo No. 2734/Arms passed in Arms Case No. IX – 67//2022 of the district magistrate Patna was rejected; for quashing the order dated 04.08.2023 (communication to the petitioner by memo no. 2734/Arms, Patna whereby and where under he was pleased to reject the petitioner’s application for grant of N.P. bore Rifle license, for directing the respondent authorities especially the district magistrate, Patna to grant to the petitioner a N.P. Bore Rifle license without any delay and for all consequential reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled during the course of hearing of this writ application. And other relief which the petitioner found deserving to be granted for arms license under the Arms Act 1959 as well as Arms Rule 2016 under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The case of the petitioner is that he is a contractor and agriculturist, and his wife is the elected Parshad of Ward No. 4 of the Nagarpalika, Masaurhi. He had applied in the year 2022 for grant of an N.P. Bore Rifle licence for the safety of his life and property, upon which Arms Case No. IX-67/2022 was registered. The application, upon antecedent verification on the 14-point S-4 Format by the S.H.O., Masaurhi P.S., was recommended and forwarded through the S.D.P.O., Masaurhi, the S.D.O., Masaurhi and the D.I.G.-cum-Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna vide letter No. 692/C (Arms) dated 21.08.2022 to the District Magistrate, Patna. Despite the said recommendation, the District Magistrate, Patna, by order dated 04.08.2023 rejected the application. The petitioner's earlier writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 15214 of 2023, against the said rejection was disposed of on 02.07.2024 granting liberty to file a statutory appeal. The appeal preferred thereupon, being Arms Appeal Case No. 194 of 2024, was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna vide order dated 19.09.2024, giving rise to the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for arms licence had been duly examined and recommended by the S.H.O., Masaurhi P.S. under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959, and was forwarded with such recommendation by the S.D.P.O., the S.D.O. and the D.I.G.-cum-Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna; yet the District Magistrate, Patna rejected the application on the vague ground of want of relevant documents and absence of a “special recommendation”, which is not a ground for refusal contemplated under Section 13 or Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, or under Rule 12(3) and 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016, and that the licensing authority failed to consider the judgments in L.P.A. No. 1228 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 1180 of 2018 (Ravi Raj v. The State of Bihar & Ors.), reported in PLJR 2019 (4) Pg. 273, which lay down the procedure for grant of an arms licence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner stands acquitted since 07.04.2022 of the charge in Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 299/2009 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi, and that during the pendency of his arms application, the petitioner was subjected to a murderous attack by indiscriminate firing, in respect of which Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 277 of 2023 dated 01.05.2023 (under Sections 341/323/379/337/504/506/307/34 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act) was registered naming the petitioner as a victim; that neither of these facts, though specifically brought to the notice of the District Magistrate, was considered in the impugned order, notwithstanding that the petitioner's wife, being an elected Parshad, faces a real threat perception in an area stated to be a stronghold of criminals, and that the Home Department, Government of Bihar, by letter dated 10.03.2022, has directed that arms licence applications of elected representatives be considered on a priority basis in view of such representatives being targeted.
Learned counsel for the State submitted, that upon the petitioner’s application, the District Magistrate, Patna vide letter No. 726 dated 29.01.2022 had sought a report from the S.S.P., Patna, who vide letter No. 962 dated 21.08.2022 forwarded the report of the S.D.O., Masaurhi (letter No. 323 dated 28.06.2022) along with the reports of the Officer In-Charge, Masaurhi P.S. and the S.D.P.O., Masaurhi, and as per the report of the Officer In-Charge, Masaurhi P.S., Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 299/09 dated 21.07.2009 under Sections 147/341/323/379 I.P.C. had been registered against the petitioner and charge-sheet No. 343/09 filed therein.
Learned counsel for the State further submitted that the petitioner was informed vide memo No. 2648 dated 26.07.2023 for hearing on 31.07.2023, on which date he appeared and stated that he is a contractor, having filed returns for A/Y 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 showing income of Rs. 2,94,600/-, Rs. 4,30,600/- and Rs. 4,95,950/- respectively, and stated that he had been exonerated in Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 299/09; that the petitioner did not, however, submit any supportive document regarding the requirement of an arms licence, nor did the Officer In-Charge, Masaurhi P.S. state any specific reason or opinion in that regard; and that having regard to Section 13(3)(b) and Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Rules, 2016, the District Magistrate, Patna rejected the application vide memo No. 2734 dated 04.08.2023, which order is justified in the eyes of law.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record, it becomes important to reiterate that, it is a settled position of law that the right to bear arms is not a fundamental right available to citizens, and that the grant, refusal, renewal or cancellation of an arms licence remains a privilege regulated by statute under the Arms Act, 1959 — one that is nonetheless bounded by well-defined statutory and judicial safeguards, summarized below:
Under section 14 and section 17 of the Arms Act, authorities cannot reject or revoke a license based on vague allegations, whims or caprice; such decisions require recorded, objective reasons showing genuine danger to public peace or safety.
Mere involvement or registration of a routine FIR against an applicant or license holder is generally an insufficient ground for outright cancellation or refusal unless active misuse, violence, or a direct threat to public safety is demonstrated.
Police verification reports and threat assessments must be weighed conclusively, rather than dismissed or accepted through generalized assumptions.
An arms license to an individual cannot be denied solely on the ground that the applicant does not have any "specific threat or imminent danger".
The authorities shall not insist upon a safety training course conducted by the accredited trainer or master accredited trainer having license under rule 39, unless the same has been notified by the Central Government by issuing a general or special order in this regard as envisaged in Rule 10(3) of the Arms Rule, 2016.
Applying the above to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the District Magistrate, Patna, failed to consider the petitioner's application in an objective manner, and the grounds for rejection — namely, want of relevant documents and absence of a "special recommendation" — are entirely cryptic, more so when the report of the S.H.O., Masaurhi P.S. itself recommended the grant of the licence and was forwarded without any adverse opinion by the S.D.P.O., the S.D.O. and the D.I.G.-cum-Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. It is not the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate that matters; rather, an objective consideration of the facts on record — including the petitioner's acquittal in Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 299/2009 and the fact of his having been the victim of a firearm attack recorded in Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 277 of 2023 — was essential. Surprisingly, the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, upheld the rejection in an equally cryptic manner, without adverting to the materials already on record.
Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner stands acquitted in the only criminal case registered against him, and that his application was duly verified and recommended by the S.H.O., Masaurhi P.S. and forwarded up the chain to the District Magistrate, and that the petitioner holds an Arms Training certificate from the Vidhyanad Rifle Shooting Club, Siwan, and further that the petitioner has himself been the victim of a firearm attack (Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 277 of 2023), and that his wife, an elected Parshad, faces a genuine threat perception in a crime-affected area regarding which the Home Department has itself directed priority consideration while granting arms license, the Concerned Authorities ought to have considered his Arms License application favourably.
In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna in Arms Case No. IX-67/2022, and the appellate order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna in Arms Appeal Case No. 194 of 2024 affirming the same, are hereby quashed.
The District Magistrate, Patna, is hereby directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner in light of the fact that the petitioner is a contractor and his wife is a public representative and his entire family requires self-protection, and taking into account the nature of his work as well as the threat perception faced by him as evidenced by the firearm attack recorded in Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 277 of 2023. It is further directed that the District Magistrate, Patna shall decide the application within three months from the date of filing of a copy of this order
Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition is allowed.