RANVIJAY KUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State Government.

(2.) The petitioner Ranvijay Kumar Patel, Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Surhari has come to this Court inter-alia submitting that the order contained in Annexure-4 passed on 1-10-2001 by the District Magistrate canceling the arms licence and directing confiscation of the gun be quashed.

(3.) The facts in short are that Licence No. 230/60 of Police Station Eakhtiyarpur was issued in favour of the Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat. It is not in dispute before me that on 14-9-1973 one Hari Narain Singh son of the Mukhiya, Birendra Kumar Singh surrendered the gun with two cartridges with the State Government through Police Department inter-alia submitting that said Birendra Kumar Singh was murdered and case was registered under Section302 and as he was not entitled to carry the arms he was surrendering the same. The arms were received by the police and were kept in their Malkhana. It appears that since after 1973 nobody took are of the said arms neither the police reported the matter to the District Magistrate for taking confiscation proceedings nor any other person who took over the office of Mukhiya made any application to the State Government for release of the arms or renewal of the licence, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since after 1973 election of the present petitioner nobody occupied the office of Mukhiya. It appears from Annexure-2 that the petitioner in his capacity as Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj. Surhari made an application to the District Magistrate that a direction for release of the gun and the cartridges be issued. After receiving the said application the District Magistrate issued a notice to show-cause that why the licence be not cancelled and the gun and cartridges be not confiscated. The petitioner submitted his show-cause and informed the authority that the gun remained in the Malkhana as there was no Mukhiya of the place and as the office of the Mukhiya has the perpetual succession the gun and cartridges be released. By the impugned order contained in Annexure-4 the District Magistrate observed that a licence is issued in the name of a person so that he may defend his person and property. He also observed that in the present matter the licence was issued in the name of Mukhiya/office of Mukhiya, Therefore, it may lead to a complication that every time a Mukhiya is elected then such Mukhiya will have to obtain a licence. Observing further that in sensitive area like Nalanda a number of licence have already been issued, the reform before issuance of a licence a complete investigation was necessary, thereafter he observed that it was not necessary to issue a licence in the name of the office. Further, while rejecting the application for return cancelling the licence and directing confiscation he observed that if the Mukhiya wants a licence in his personal capacity then he may make an application, which would be decided on its own merits. Being aggrieved by the said orders in stead of going into a statutory appeal the petitioner has come to this Court.