SIYA RAM RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bishwa Nath Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. With the consent of the parties the writ petition has been heard on merits and is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission itself, by this judgment.

(2.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition has questioned the order dated 2.8.2014 passed by the licensing authority-cum-the District Magistrate, Buxar in Arms Case No. 79 of 2008 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of arms license in respect of Non-Prohibited Bore ('N.P.B.' in short) rifle has been rejected inter alia on grounds of absence of threat perception. The order is impugned at Annexure-8 to the writ petition.

(3.) Facts of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner applied for grant of arms license in respect of his N.P.B. rifle in the year 2007, a copy of which is placed at Ahnexure-1 to the writ petition. The application of the petitioner was duly recommended by the Station House Officer of the local police station who has categorically mentioned that the petitioner does not hold any other license and that his house and property lies within a criminal infested region. The recommendation made by the Station House Officer of the local police station was duly forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Buxar to the District Magistrate, Buxar, the licensing authority on 26.5.2008, a copy of which is placed at Annexure-3. The application filed by the petitioner was also duly recommended by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Buxar placed at Annexure-3/A. Despite the circumstances, the District Magistrate, Buxar vide order passed on 11.9.2008 rejected the application on grounds of absence of threat perception to the petitioner and which order is placed at Annexure-4. The order was questioned by the petitioner before the appellate authority being the Commissioner, Patna Division in Arms Appeal No. 438 of 2008 and the appellate authority taking note of the police report as also the circumstances discussed therein that the house and property lies within a criminal infested area required a re-consideration of the matter by the licensing authority and the matter was remitted back for disposal within six months. The appellate order is dated 14.9.2010 and upon remand a fresh report was called for by the District Magistrate, Buxar from the Superintendent of Police who again reiterated nothing adverse against the petitioner vide letter dated 20.12.2011 but despite these circumstances it took three years for the District Magistrate, Buxar to again reject the application of the petitioner on the selfsame grounds regarding absence of threat perception and this time the District Magistrate has relied upon a guideline issued by the Government of India in its Ministry of Home Affairs dated 31st March, 2010 which in its Clause-II requires the licensing authority to also bear in mind any . threat perception suffered by an applicant while granting licenses. Relying on the said guidelines that the District Magistrate has again rejected the prayer of the petitioner by the order impugned and being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court.