RAJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) This writ application was initially filed for a direction to the licensing authority to consider his application dated 09.02.2011 filed for grant of licence for N.P. bore pistol as the same has remained pending for about three years without passing any order.

(3.) On the last occasion, learned counsel for the State had submitted, on instruction, that the order rejecting the licence of the petitioner was passed even prior to filing of the writ petition in the year 2014 and on that submission having been made, by order dated 25.08.2015, this Court had granted adjournment to enable learned counsel for the State to seek instruction and file counter affidavit, however, it was clearly directed that the counter affidavit must disclose the fact that if the order rejecting the application of the petitioner was already passed by the licensing authority, whether it was communicated to the petitioner or not should also be stated and if it was communicated to the petitioner then the evidence regarding its communication must be brought on record. However, in complete ignorance of the direction, the counter affidavit has been filed today appending therewith the order dated 26.07.2013 as contained in Annexure D passed in the case of the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Patna. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to show from it that any averment has been made in it regarding the aforesaid query of this Court. No evidence regarding its communication to the petitioner has also been brought on record merely an averment has been made that the order was already communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 3118/Arms dated 08.08.2013, however, no evidence of any service of the aforesaid memo has been brought on record. It is also not stated as to whether the aforesaid memo was actually served upon the petitioner under a registered post or by hand or by any other mode.