UDAY NARAIN OJHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THE present writ application has been filed in the year 2004 for a direction to the respondents including District Magistrate, Rohtas to consider his application for grant of a non -prohibited bore arms licence, application for which the petitioner had filed in 1994. When this case was taken up today, the learned counsel for the State stated that a counter affidavit had been filed and served on the petitioner but neither the petitioner nor the Court records reveals the same. However, the copy of the said counter affidavit being available with the State Counsel has been perused. With consent of both the parties, the writ application is being taken up and is being disposed of at this stage itself. Firstly, it is to be noticed that the petitioner had applied for a non -prohibited bore arms licence in the year 1994 and till 2004 nothing was done on his application. From the counter affidavit which the Court has perused, it is apparent that it is only in 2004 and probably after writ was filed then the petitioner 'sapplication was proceeded with. This is a matter of grave concern. Where a citizen has a statutory right to make an application for an arm licence, it goes without saying that he also has a right to have the same considered expeditiously. In this connection, I may refer to Sec. 13 under Chapter III of the Arms Act. Sec. 13(2) enjoins upon the licensing authority to call for a report of the Officer -in -Charge of the nearest Police Station on the application so made and the officer is obliged to send the report within the prescribed time. Ordinarily, the expression "prescribed time" would mean time prescribed by the Rules but conspicuously the Rules made under the Act are silent in this regard. This, to my mind, does not mean that there being no time limit the authorities can sleep over the matter and wait for the High Court to wake them from their deep slumber. The prescribed time would mean the time prescribed by the licensing authority to submit the report. In absence of any such stipulation, it would be necessary to submit the report and could not be more than one month in any event. It is, thus, to be seen that once an application is made for grant of arms licence then the licensing authority must within a month call for a report from the nearest Police Station. If the report is not received within one month then sub - section (2A) of Sec. 13 proviso provides that the licensing authority has not to wait ad infinitum but can proceed in absence of any such report. This, to my mind, again indicates that the application has to be considered expeditiously and not left to gather dust.

(3.) THERE is yet another reason for this Court to point out the duty of the licensing authority because if there is no time limit put and the matter is left ad infinitum, it would only lead to wrongful and unconstitutional practices which in civilized country or societies cannot be countenanced.