Janki Prasad vs State of Bihar and Others

Aftab Alam, J.—The Petitioner holds a licence for a rifle from before. He made an application for grant of a licence for pistol. It appears that the District Magistrate, who is the licensing authority for the fire arm applied for, made a favourable recommendation in the Petitioner''s favour but forwarded his application to the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner refused to grant the licence for pistol as requested by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner challenged the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10175/97. It was urged that under the Act it was the District Magistrate himself who was the licensing authority and it was, therefore, for the District Magistrate to consider the Petitioner''s application and to pass appropriate orders on it under the Act. The Divisional Commissioner had no licensing power in connection with pistol and therefore the order passed by him was without jurisdiction and untenable in law. This Court disposed of that writ petition by order, dated 12.1.1998. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division was set aside and the District Magistrate, Gaya, being the licensing authority was directed to pass appropriate orders on the Petitioner''s application.

Pursuant to the direction given by this Court the Collector, Gaya has passed the order dated 12.10.1998. By this order though he allowed the Petitioner''s application for grant of a pistol, licence, he made the surrendering of the licence for rifle held by the Petitioner from before as a pre-condition for the issuance of the pistol licence. The Petitioner is once again before this Court challenging the order passed by the Collector.

Mr. N.K. Agarwal submitted that the condition of surrendering the earlier licence for rifle was quite unwarranted because under the Act a person can hold as many as three weapons. In the order there is no reason assigned for imposing the aforesaid condition for issuance of the pistol licence. There is no material to indicate that the Petitioner was unfit to hold a pistol licence in addition to a licence for a rifle. In case the Petitioner was considered fit to hold a pistol licence he could as well hold it in addition to the rifle licence issued in his favour earlier.

On hearing Mr. Agarwal appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent authorities, I am of the view that the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner are well founded and are fit to be accepted. I accordingly allow this writ petition, set aside the order, dated 12.10.1999 and remit the matter back to the Collector, Gaya for passing a fresh order on the application of the Petitioner for grant of pistol licence in accordance with law.