ROHAN KUNAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.11.2016 under Memo No. 3456/Arms, passed by the Respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Patna, as contained in Annexure 5, whereby the application of the petitioner filed for grant of licence for SBBL/DBBL gun has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner being the grand son of the licensee, does not come within the ambit of heirs of the licensee under the family heirloom policy.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that the grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Dr. Ramashray Prasad Yadav was a licensee, having licence no. 235/57 for SBBL/DBBL gun. Subsequent to the death of his grand father, the gun was deposited with the arms dealer M/s Baidyanath Prasad & Sons, Patna on 18.9.2010, deposit receipt whereof is contained in Annexure 1. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of licence for SBBL/DBBL gun on 18.12.2014 before the Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Patna. Subsequently, the police report was submitted recommending in favour of the petitioner, but in spite of that, no decision was taken on the application of the petitioner, which necessitated the petitioner to file writ application being CWJC No. 7378 of 2015 before this Court for a direction to the licensing authority to take a decision on the application of the petitioner under Family Heirloom Policy. During the pendency of the said writ application, the application of the petitioner was rejected vide Memo No. 1932 dated 14.7.2015 by the Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Patna. The said rejection order was challenged through I.A. No. 6941 of 2015 in the said writ application and a Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.9.2015, as contained in Annexure 4/B, quashed the order of Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Patna and directed the licensing authority to consider the application of the petitioner under Family Heirloom Policy. However, by inadvertence, in the writ order in place of grand father, father was recorded. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation along with the said order of the writ court before the licensing authority Respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Patna but the prayer of the petitioner for grant of licence for SBBL/DBBL gun was rejected on the ground that the grand son does not come within the category of heirs of the deceased licensee. Hence, the present writ application.