MUKESH PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had made an application for grant of arms licence, which was refused by the Collector, Gaya and the order was not interfered with by the Commissioner, Gaya Division. The ground for non-grant as disclosed in the order is that petitioner has not been able to establish necessity for being provided with a fire arm.

(2.) Mr. K.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court has already held in several decisions that though the satisfaction of licensing authority in matters of arms licence is subjective, it should be based on objective findings.

(3.) There cannot be any quarrel with the said proposition, but the fact remains as to what does the petitioner do, even in the writ petition there is no pleading as to the nature of the business that the petitioner does, which requires him to provide for protection for himself. In other words, the question of threat perception remains unanswered. The only clue one gets from the order of the Divisional Commissioner is wherein the petitioner has been clarified that he has a telephone booth that in my view does not justify any threat perception of the level for which an arms licence could be considered for grant.